FAISNÉIS Ó INSTITIÚIDÍ, Ó CHOMHLACHTAÍ, Ó OIFIGÍ, AGUS Ó GHNÍOMHAIREACHTAÍ AN AONTAIS EORPAIGH

FÓGRAÍ Ó INSTITIÚIDÍ, Ó CHOMHLACHTAÍ, Ó OIFIGÍ, AGUS Ó GHNÍOMHAIREACHTAÍ AN AONTAIS EORPAIGH

13.4.2023

Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh

C 129/3

Faisnéis ón gCoimisiún Eorpach, arna foilsiú i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 22(2) de Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1005/2008 ón gComhairle, maidir le fógraí ón stát brataí (Liosta de na Stáit agus dá n-údaráis inniúla), de réir Airteagal 20(1), ( 2) agus (3) de Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1005/2008 agus Iarscríbhinn III a ghabhann leis

(2023/C 129/03)

I gcomhréir le hAirteagal 20(1), (2) agus (3) de Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1005/2008 (1) ón gComhairle agus le hIarscríbhinn III a ghabhann leis, thug na tríú tíortha seo a leanas fógra don Choimisiún Eorpach maidir leis na húdaráis phoiblí, ar údaráis phoiblí iad, i ndáil leis an scéim um dheimhniú gabhála a bhunaítear le hAirteagal 12 den Rialachán, a bhfuil sé de chumhacht acu:

a)	soithí iascaireachta a chlárú faoina mbratach;

b)	ceadúnais iascaireachta a dheonú dá soithí iascaireachta, nó iad a chur ar fionraí nó a tharraingt siar;

c)	fírinneacht na faisnéise a sholáthraítear sna deimhnithe gabhála dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 12 a fhianú agus na deimhnithe sin a bhailíochtú;

d)	dlíthe, rialacháin agus bearta caomhnaithe agus bainistithe nach mór dá soithí iascaireachta a chomhlíonadh a chur chun feidhme, a rialú agus a fhorfheidhmiú;

e)	fíoruithe a dhéanamh ar na deimhnithe gabhála sin chun cuidiú le húdaráis inniúla na mBallstát tríd an gcomhar riaracháin dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 20(4);

f)	foirmeacha samplacha dá ndeimhnithe gabhála atá i gcomhréir leis an bhfoirm shamplach in Iarscríbhinn II a chur in iúl; agus

na fógraí sin a thabhairt cothrom le dáta.

Tríú tír

Údaráis inniúla

AN ALBÁIN

(a):

—	Albanian General Harbour Masters (Ministry Transport and Infrastructure)

(b):

—	Commission for Examination of Applications for Fishing Permittion (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development & Water Administration), through National Licensing Center (Ministry of Economical Development, Tourism, Trade and Interpreneurship)

(c), (d), (e):

—	Sector of Fishery Monitoring and Control (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development & Water Administration)

(f) agus (g):

—	The Directorate of Agriculture Production and Trade Policies (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development & Water Administration)

AN AILGÉIR

(a) go (d):

—

Directions de la Pêche et des Ressources Halieutiques des Wilayas de:

—

El Tarf,

—

Annaba,

—

Skikda,

—

Jijel,

—

Bejaian,

—	Tizi Ouzou,

—	Boumerdes,

—

Alger,

—

Tipaza,

—

Chlef,

—	Mostaganem,

—

Oran,

—	Ain Temouchent,

—

Tlemcen.

(e) go (g):

—	Ministère de la Pêche et des Ressources Halieutiques

ANGÓLA

(a):

—	Conservatória do registo de propriedade (subordinada ao Ministério da Justiça)/Instituto Marítimo Portuário de Angola – IMPA (subordinada ao Ministério dos Transportes)

(b):

—	Ministra das Pescas e do Mar

(c):

—	Direcção Nacional de Pescas (DNP)

(d):

—	Serviço Nacional de Fiscalização Pesqueira e da Aquicultura (SNFPA)

(e), (f), (g):

—	Direcção Nacional de Pescas (Ministério das Pescas e do Mar)

ANTIGUA AGUS BARBÚDA

(a) go (g):

—	Chief Fisheries Officer, Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Housing and Environment.

AN AIRGINTÍN

(a) go (g):

—	Dirección Nacional de Coordinación y Fiscalización Pesquera (Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca)

AN ASTRÁIL

(a) go (e):

—

Australian Fisheries Management Authority;

Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Western Australia;

Department of Primary Industries, New South Wales;

Department

of Agriculture and Fisheries, Queensland;

Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Tasmania;

Victoria Fishing Authority;

Department of Primary Industries and Regions, South Australia

(f) go (g):

—	The Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment

NA BAHÁMAÍ

(a) agus (b):

—	Port Department, within the Ministry of The Environment/Department of Marine Resources

—	Department of Marine Resources

AN BHANGLAIDÉIS

(a):

—	Mercantile Marine Department

(b) go (f):

—	Marine Fisheries Office

(g):

—	Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock

AN BHEILÍS

(a):

—	The International Merchant Marine Registry of Belize (INMARBE)

—	Belize High Seas Fisheries Unit, Ministry of Finance, Government of Belize

BEININ

(a):

—	Direction de la Marine Marchande/Ministère en charge de l’Economie Maritime; Service Contrôle et Suivi des Produits et des Filières Halieutiques de la Direction des Pêches

(b):

—	Direction des Pêches/Ministère en charge de la Pêche; Service Contrôle et Suivi des Produits et des Filières Halieutiques de la Direction des Pêches

(c),(e),(f),(g):

—	Service Contrôle et Suivi des Produits et des Filières Halieutiques de la Direction des Pêches

(d):

—	Direction des Pêches/Ministère en charge de la Pêche

AN BHRASAÍL

(a) go (g):

—	Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply

CAMARÚN (2)

(a):

—	Ministère des Transports

(b) go (g):

—	Ministère de l’Elevage, des Pêches et Industries Animales

CEANADA

(a) go (g):

—	Assistant Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Harbour Management

CABO VERDE

(a):

—	Institut Maritime et Portuaire (IMP)/Instituto Marítimo e Portuário (IMP)

(b):

—	Direction Générale des Ressources Marines (DGRM)/Direção Geral dos Recursos Marinhos (DGRM)

(c),(d),(e),(f),(g):

—	Unité d’inspection et garantie de qualité (UIGQ)/Unidade de Inspecção e Garantia de Qualidade (UIGQ)

AN tSILE

(a):

Dirección General del Territorio Marítimo y Marina Mercante, de la Armada de Chile

(b):

—	Subsecretaría de Pesca

—	Servicio Nacional de Pesca

(g):

—	Subsecretaria de Pesca

AN tSÍN

(a) go (g):

—	Bureau of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA), P.R. China

AN CHOLÓIM

(a):

—	Dirección General Marítima

(b) go (f):

—	Autoridad Nacional de Acuicultura y Pesca (AUNAP)

(g):

—	Director de Pesca y Acuicultura

CÓSTA RÍCE

(a):

—	Oficina de Bienes Muebles, Dirección Nacional de Registro Público, Ministerio de Justicia y Gracia

(b):

—	Presidente Ejecutivo, Instituto Costarricense de Pesca y Acuicultura

(c):

—	Dirección General Técnica, Instituto Costarricense de Pesca y Acuicultura

(d):

—	Unidad de Control Pesquero/Instituto Costarricense de Pesca y Acuicultura/Director General del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas, Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, Gobernación y Policía

(e):

—	Departamento de Cooperación Internacional/Instituto Costarricense de Pesca y Acuicultura

(f):

—	Dirección General Técnica o instancia competente del Instituto Costarricense de Pesca y Acuicultura

(g):

—	Ministro de Agricultura y Ganadería, Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería

CÚBA

(a):

—	Registro Marítimo Nacional

(b),(c),(e):

—	Oficina Nacional de Inspección Pesquera (ONIP)

(d):

—	Dirección de Ciencias y Regulaciones Pesqueras and Oficina Nacional de Inspección Pesquera

(f):

—	Dirección de Planificación del Ministerio de la Industria Pesquera

(g):

—	Dirección de Relaciones Internacionales del Ministerio de la Industria Pesquera

CÚRASÓ

(a):

—	The Ministry of Traffic, Transport and Urban Planning

(b) agus (f):

—	The Ministry of Economic Development

(c):

—	The Ministry of Economic Development in consultation with

the Ministry of Public Health, Environment and Nature

(d):

—	The Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of

Traffic, Transport and Urban Planning The Attorney General of Curacao is in charge of the law enforcement

(e):

—	The Ministry of Economic Development in collaboration with the Ministry of Traffic, Transport and Urban Planning

(g):

—	The Government of Curacao

EACUADÓR

(a),(c),(e):

—	Director de Pesca Industrial (Ministerio de Acuacultura y Pesca)

(b),(f),(g):

—	Subsecretario de Recursos Pesqueros (Ministerio de Acuacultura y Pesca)

(d):

—	Director de Control Pesquero (Ministerio de Acuacultura y Pesca)

AN ÉIGIPT

(a):

—

Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation:

I)	General Organization For Veterinary Services (GOVs)

II)	General Authority For Fish Resources Development

(b) agus (d):

—	General Authority for Fish Resources Development (cooperation with GOVs in case of fishing vessels of exporting establishments)

(c):

—	Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation:General Organization for Veterinary Services (both Central and Local VET. Quarantine Department)

(e):

—	General Authority for Fish Resources Development (cooperation with local inspectors Veterinary Quarantine for fishing vessels of exporting establishments)

(f):

—	General Organization for Veterinary Services

(g):

I)	Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation

II)	General Organization For Veterinary Services

AN tSALVADÓIR

(a):

—	Autoridad Marítima Portuária

(b) go (g):

—	Centro de Desarrollo de la Pesca y la Acuicultura (CENDEPESCA)

AN EIRITRÉ

(a):

—	Ministry of Fisheries

(b):

—	Fisheries Resource Regulatory Department

(c):

—	Fish Quality Inspection Division

(d):

—	Monitoring Controlling and Surveillance, Ministry of Fisheries

(e):

—	Liaison Division, Ministry of Fisheries

(f):

—	Ministry of Fisheries Laboratory

(g):

—	Government of the State of Eritrea

OILEÁIN FHÁCLAINNE

(a):

—	Registar of Shipping, Customs and Immigration Department, Falkland Islands Government

(b) go (g):

—	Director of Fisheries, Fisheries Department, Falkland Islands Government

OILEÁIN FHARÓ

(a):

—	FAS Faroe Islands National & International Ship Register

(b):

—	Ministry of Fisheries and the Faroe Islands Fisheries Inspection

(c):

—	Faroe Islands Fisheries Inspection

(d):

—	Ministry of Fisheries, the Faroe Islands Fisheries Inspection and the Police and the Public Prosecution Authority

(e):

—	The Faroe Islands Fisheries Inspection

(f) agus (g):

—	Ministry of Fisheries

FIDSÍ

(a):

—	Maritime Safety Authority of Fiji (MSAF)

(b):

—	Ministry of Fisheries and Forests; Fisheries Department

—	Fisheries Department

POLAINÉIS NA FRAINCE

(a):

—	Direction Polynésienne des Affaires Maritimes (DPAM)

(b),(c),(e),(f):

—	Direction des ressources marines (DRM)

(d):

—	Direction des ressources marines (DRM)/Haut-Commissariat de la République française/Service des Affaires Maritimes de Polynésie française (SAM PF)

(g):

—	Direction générale des affaires maritimes, de la pêche et de l’Aquaculture (DGAMPA)

AN GHABÚIN

(a) agus (b):

—	Ministre de l’Agriculture, de l’Elevage, de la Pêche et du Développement Tuaithe

—	Directeur Général des Pêches et de l’Aquaculture

AN GHAIMBIA

(a):

—	The Gambia Maritime Administration

(b):

—	Director of Fisheries

—	Fisheries Department (Director of Fisheries)

GÁNA

(a) go (g):

—	Fisheries Commission

AN GHRAONLAINN

(a):

—	The Danish Maritime Authority

(b) go (g):

—	The Greenland Fisheries Licence Control Authority

GREANÁDA

(a) go (g):

—	Fisheries Division (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries)

GUATAMALA

(a) go (g):

—	Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación (MAGA) through Dirección de Normatividad de la Pesca y Acuicultura.

AN GHUINE

(a):

—	Direction Générale de l’Agence de la Navigation Maritime (ANAM)

(b):

—	Direction Nationale des Pêches Maritimes

(c):

—	Le Certificateur des certificats de capture

(d) go (f):

—	Direction Générale du Centre National de Surveillance de Police des Pêcheries

(g):

—	Ministère des Pêches, de l’Aquaculture et le l’Economie Maritime

AN GHUÁIN

(a) go (g):

—	Fisheries Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Guyana, South America

AN ÍOSLAINN

(a) agus (b):

—	Directorate of Fisheries

(c),(e),(f),(g):

—	Directorate of Fisheries/The Icelandic Food and Veterinary Authority

(d):

—	Directorate of Fisheries/The Icelandic Coast Guards

AN INDIA

(a) agus (b):

—	Marine Products Exports Development Authority (MPEDA) under the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Govt. of India

Registrars under the Merchant Shipping Act (Director General of Shipping), Ministry of Shipping, Govt. of India

Deparment of Fisheries of State (Provincial) Governments of West Bengal, Gujarat, Kerala, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharastra, and Tamil Nadu

(c):

—

Marine Products Exports Development Authority (MPEDA) under the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Govt. of India

Authorized officers as notified by State Governments and Union Territories:

—	Kochi (Regional Division)

—	Chennai (Regional Division)

—	Kolkata (Regional Division)

—	Mumbai (Regional Division)

—	Visakhapatnam (Regional Division)

—	Veraval (Regional Division)

—	Mangalore (Sub Regional Division)

—	Kollam (Sub Regional Division)

—	Goa (Sub Regional Division)

—	Tuticorin (Sub Regional Division)

—	Bhubaneswar (Regional Division)

—	Bhimavaram (Sub Regional Division)

—	Porbandar (Sub Regional Division)

—	Ratnagiri (Sub Regional Division)

—	Kavaratti (Sub Regional Division)

—	Nellore (Satellite Centre)

(d):

—	Director General of Shipping Marine Products Exports Development Authority, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Govt. of India Coast Guard Department of Fisheries of the State Governments

(e):

—	Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) under the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Govt. of India and its 21 field offices Authorized officers of notified State Governments and Union Territories

(f):

—	Joint Secretary, (EP-MP) Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry

(g):

—	Joint Secretary, (EP-MP) Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry Joint Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture

AN INDINÉIS

(a) agus (b):

—	Head of Marine and Fisheries Services Province

Director General Maritime of Capture Fisheries

(c):

—	Head of Fishing Port, Directorate General of Capture Fisheries Fisheries Inspector, Directorate General of Marine Fisheries Resources Surveillance and Control

(d):

—	Director General of Marine and Fisheries Resources Surveillance

(e):

—	Director General of Capture Fisheries

(f) agus (g):

—	Director General of Fisheries Product Processing and Marketing

AN CÓSTA EABHAIR

(a):

—	Directeur Général des Affaires Maritimes et Portuaires (DGAMP, Secrétariat d’État auprès du Ministre des Transports chargé des Affaires Maritimes et Portuaires)

(b):

—	Ministre des Ressources Animales et Halieutiques

—	Ministre des Ressources Animales et Halieutiques

—	Directeur des Pêches, Direction des pêches

Agus

—	Chef du Service d’Inspection et de Contrôle en Frontière (Service d’Inspection et de Contrôle Sanitaires Vétérinaires en Frontières, SICOSAV)

(d):

—	Ministre des Ressources Animales et Halieutiques Directeur des Pêches, Direction des pêches

(f) agus (g):

—	Ministre des Ressources Animales et Halieutiques

IAMÁICE

(a):

—	Maritime Authority of Jamaica (MAJ)

(b) go (g):

—	Fisheries Division

AN tSEAPÁIN

(a):

—	Fisheries Management Division, Bureau of Fisheries, Department of Fisheries and Forestry, Hokkaido Government

—	Aomori Prefectural Government

—	Hachinohe Fisheries Office, Sanpachi District Administration Office, Aomori Prefectural Government

—	Mutsu Fisheries Office, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Seihoku District Administration Office, Aomori Prefectural Government

—	Ajigasawa Fisheries Office, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Seihoku District Administration Office, Aomori Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Industry Promotion Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Iwate Prefectural Department

—	Fisheries Department, Kuji Regional Promotion Bureau, Iwate Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Department, Miyako Regional Promotion Bureau, Iwate Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Department, Kamaishi Regional Promotion Bureau, Iwate Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Department, Ofunato Regional Promotion Bureau, Iwate Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Industry Promotion Division, Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Department, Miyagi Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries and Fishing Ports Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Akita Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Industrial and Economic Affairs Department, Shonai Area General Branch Administration Office, Yamagata Prefectural Government

—	Fishery Division, Fukushima Prefectural Government

—	Fishery Office, Fukushima Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Administration Division, Ibaraki Prefectural Government

—	Marine Industries Promotion Division, Chiba Prefectural Government

—	Fishery section, Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Division, Bureau of Industrial and Labor Affairs, Tokyo Metropolitan Government

—	Fisheries Division, Environment and Agriculture Department, Kanagawa Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Niigata Prefectural Government

—	Promotion Division, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Promotion Department, Sado Regional Promotion Bureau, Niigata Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries and Fishing Port Division, Toyama Prefectural Government

—	Fishery Division, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Department, Ishikawa Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Fukui Prefectural Government

—	Reinan Regional Promotion Bureau, Fukui Prefectural Government

—	Office of Fishery Management, Division of Fishery, Department of Industry, Shizuoka Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Administration Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Aichi Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Resource Office, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, Commerce and Industry, Mie Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Kyoto Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Office, Kyoto Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Osaka Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Bureau, Agriculture and Environmental Department, Hyogo Prefectural Government

—	Kobe Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Office, Kobe District Administration Office, Hyogo prefectural Government

—	Kakogawa Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Office, Higashi-Harima District Administration Office, Hyogo Prefectural Government

—	Himeji Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Office, Naka-Harima District Administration Office, Hyogo Prefectural Government

—	Koto Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Office, Nishi-Harima District Administration Office, Hyogo Prefectural Government

—	Tajima Fisheries Office, Tajima District Administration Office, Hyogo Prefectural Government

—	Sumoto Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Office, Awaji District Administration Office, Hyogo Prefectural Government

—	Wakayama Prefectural Government

—	Kaisou Promotions Bureau, Wakayama Prefectural Government

—	Arida Promotions Bureau, Wakayama Prefectural Government

—	Hidaka Promotions Bureau, Wakayama Prefectural Government

—	Nishimuro Promotion Bureau, Wakayama Prefectural Government

—	Higashimuro Promotion Bureau, Wakayama Prefectural Government

—	Fishery Division, Fishery Development Bureau, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery, Tottori Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Shimane Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Office, Oki Branch Office, Shimane Prefectural Government

—	Matsue Fisheries Office, Shimane Prefectural Government

—	Hamada Fisheries office, Shimane Prefectural Government

—	Okayama Prefectural Government

—	Hiroshima Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Promotion Division, Yamaguchi Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Department, Tokushima Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Agricultural Administration and Fisheries Department, Kagawa Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Promotion Division, Fisheries Bureau, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Department, Ehime prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Management Division, Kochi Prefectural Government

—	Fishery Administration Division, Fishery Bureau, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Fukuoka Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Saga Prefectural Government

—	Resource Management Division, Fisheries Department, Nagasaki Prefectural Government

—	Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Kumamoto Prefectural Government

—	Tamana Regional Promotion Bureau, Kumamoto Prefectural Government

—	Yatsushiro Regional Promotion Bureau, Kumamoto Prefectural Government

—	Amakusa Regional Promotion Bureau, Kumamoto Prefectural Government

—	Oita Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Administration Division, Agriculture and Fisheries Department, Miyazaki Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Promotion Division, Kagoshima Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Okinawa Prefectural Government

—	Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Management Division, Miyako Regional Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries promotions Center, Okinawa Prefectural Government

—	Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Management Division, Yaeyama Regional Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Promotions Center, Okinawa Prefectural Government

(b):

Mar an gcéanna le pointe (a) agus:

—	Fishery Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Iwate Regional Marine Fisheries Management Commission

—	Fisheries Division, Tsu Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, Commerce, Industry and Environment Office, Mie Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Ise Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, Commerce, Industry and Environment Office, Mie Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Owase Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, Commerce, Industry and Environment Office, Mie Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Kyoto Prefectural Government

(c):

—	Fisheries Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

(d):

—	Fisheries Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

—	Fisheries Management Division, Bureau of Fisheries, Department of Fisheries and Forestry, Hokkaido Government

—	Aomori Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Industry Promotion Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Iwate Prefectural Department

—	Iwate Regional Marine Fisheries Management Commission

—	Fisheries Department, Kuji Regional Promotion Bureau, Iwate Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Department, Miyako Regional Promotion Bureau, Iwate Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Department, Kamaishi Regional Promotion Bureau, Iwate Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Department, Ofunato Regional Promotion Bureau, Iwate Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Industry Promotion Division, Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Department, Miyagi Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries and Fishing Ports Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Akita Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Industrial and Economic Affairs Department, Shonai Area General Branch Administration Office, Yamagata Prefectural Government

—	Fishery Division, Fukushima Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Administration Division, Ibaraki Prefectural Government

—	Marine Industries Promotion Division, Chiba Prefectural Government

—	Fishery section, Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Division, Bureau of Industrial and Labor Affairs, Tokyo Metropolitan Government

—	Fisheries Division, Environment and Agriculture Department, Kanagawa Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Niigata Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries and Fishing Port Division, Toyama Prefectural Government

—	Fishery Division, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Department,

—	Ishikawa Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Fukui Prefectural Government

—	Reinan Regional Promotion Bureau, Fukui Prefectural Government

—	Office of Fishery Management, Division of Fishery, Department of Industry, Shizuoka Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Administration Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Aichi Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Resource Office, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, Commerce and Industry, Mie Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Kyoto Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Osaka Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Bureau, Agriculture and Environmental Department, Hyogo Prefectural Government

—	Wakayama Prefectural Government

—	Fishery Division, Fishery Development Bureau, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery, Tottori Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Shimane Prefectural Government

—	Okayama Prefectural Government

—	Hiroshima Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Promotion Division, Yamaguchi Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Department, Tokushima Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Agricultural Administration and Fisheries Department, Kagawa Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Promotion Division, Fisheries Bureau, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Department, Ehime prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Management Division, Kochi Prefectural Government

—	Fishery Administration Division, Fishery Bureau, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Fukuoka Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Saga Prefectural Government

—	Resource Management Division, Fisheries Department, Nagasaki Prefectural Government

—	Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Kumamoto Prefectural Government

—	Oita Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Administration Division, Agriculture and Fisheries Department, Miyazaki Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Promotion Division, Kagoshima Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Okinawa Prefectural Government

(c),(f),(g):

—	Fisheries Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

AN CHÉINIA

(a):

—	Kenya Maritime Authority

(b) go (g):

—	Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries

CIREABAITÍ

(a):

—	Ministry of Information, Communications, Transport and Tourism

Development (MICTTF)

(b) go (g):

—	Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources Development (MFMRD)

AN CHÓIRÉ

(a),(b),(d),(f),(g):

—	Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries

(c),(e):

—

National Fisheries Products Quality Management Service and 13 regional offices:

—	Busan Regional Office

—	Incheon Regional Office

—	Incheon International Airport Regional Office

—	Seoul Regional Office

—	Pyeongtaek Regional Office

—	Janghang Regional Office

—	Mokpo Regional Office

—	Wando Regional Office

—	Yeosu Regional Office

—	Jeju Regional Office

—	Tongyeong Regional Office

—	Pohang Regional Office

—	Gangneung Regional Office

MADAGASCAR

(a):

—	Agence Portuaire Maritime et Fluviale Service Régional de Pêche et des Ressources halieutiques de Diana, Sava, Sofia, Boeny Melaky, Analanjirofo, Atsinanana, Atsimo Atsinanana, Vatovavy Fitovinany, Menabe, Atsimo Andrefana, Anosy, and Androy

(b):

—	Ministère chargé de la Pêche

—	Centre de Surveillance des Pêches

(e),(f),(g) :

—	Direction Générale de la Pêche et des Ressources Halieutiques

AN MHALAEISIA

(a) agus (b):

—	Department of Fisheries Malaysia and Department of Fisheries Sabah

(c),(e),(f):

—	Department of Fisheries, Malaysia

(d):

—	Department of Fisheries,

(g):

—	Department of Fisheries, Malaysia Ministry of Agriculture and Agro- based

OILEÁIN MHAILDÍVE

(a):

—	Transport Authority

(b),(c),(e),(f),(g):

—	Ministry of Fisheries, Marine Resources and Agriculture

(d):

—	Coast Guard, Maldives National Defense Force Maldives Police Service

AN MHÁRATÁIN

(a):

—	Direction de la Marine Marchande

(b):

—	Direction de la Pêche industrielle/Direction de la Pêche Artisanale et Côtière

(c),(d),(e),(f):

—	Garde Côtes Mauritanienne (GCM)

(g):

—	Ministère des Pêches et de l’Economie Maritime

OILEÁN MHUIRÍS

(a) go (g):

—	Ministry of Blue Economy, Marine Resources, Fisheries and Shipping (Fisheries Division)

MEICSICEO

(a),(c),(g):

—	CONAPESCA a través de la Dirección General de Planeación, Programación y Evaluación

(b):

—	CONAPESCA a través de la Dirección General de Ordenamiento Pesquero y Acuícola

(d),(e):

—	CONAPESCA a través de la Dirección General de Inspección y Vigilancia

(f)

—	Comisión Nacional de Acuacultura y Pesca

MONTAINÉAGRÓ

(a):

—	Ministry of Transport, Maritime Affairs and Telecommunications (Harbour Master Office Bar, Harbour Master Office Kotor)

(b) go (g):

—	Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Watermanagement

MARACÓ

(a),(b),(e),(f):

—	Direction des Pêches Maritimes et de l’Aquaculture

(c):

—

Délégations des Pêches Maritimes de:

—

Jebha

—

Nador

—	Al Hoceima

—

M’diq

—

Tanger

—

Larache

—	Kenitra-Mehdia

—	Mohammedia

—	Casablanca

—

El Jadida

—

Safi

—

Essaouira

—

Agadir

—

Sidi Ifni

—

Tan-Tan

—

Laâyoune

—

Boujdour

—

Dakhla

(d):

—	Mar an gcéanna le pointe (c)

—	Direction des Pêches Maritimes

(g):

—	Secrétariat Général du Département de la Pêche Maritime

MÓSAIMBÍC

(a):

—	National Marine Institute (INAMAR)

(b) go (g):

—	National Directorate of Fisheries Administration

(c):

—	National Direction of Operations

MAENMAR

(a):

—	Department of Marine Administration

(b) go (g):

—	An Roinn Iascaigh/An Aireacht Beostoic, Iascaigh agus Uisciúcháin

AN NAMAIB

(a):

—	Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication

(b),(d),(f),(g):

—	Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources

—	Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (Walvis Bay) and Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (Lüderitz)

AN NUA-CHALADÓIN

(a),(b),(c),(e),(f) agus (g):

—	Service des Affaires Maritimes (SAM) de Nouvelle-Calédonie

(d):

—	Etat-Major Inter-Armées

AN NUA-SHÉALAINN

(a) go (g):

—	Ministry for Primary Industries

NICEARAGUA

(a):

—	Dirección General de Transporte Acuático del Ministerio de Transporte e Infraestructura

(b),(d),(f),(g):

—	Instituto Nicaragüense de la Pesca y Acuicultura (INPESCA) through Presidente Ejecutivo

(c):

—

Instituto Nicaragüense de la Pesca y Acuicultura (INPESCA) through the Delegaciones Departamentales:

—	Delegación de INPESCA Puerto Cabezas

—	Delegación de INPESCA Chinandega

—	Delegación de INPESCA Bluefields

—	Delegación de INPESCA Rivas

(e):

—	Dirección de Monitoreo, Vigilancia y Control, INPESCA

AN NIGÉIR

(a):

—	Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA)

(b):

—	Federal Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development

(c),(d),(f):

—	Federal Department of Fisheries & Aquaculture (Fisheries Resources Monitoring, control & Surveillance (MCS))

(e),(g):

—	Federal Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development, Director of Fisheries

AN IORUA

(a),(b),(e),(f),(g):

—	Directorate of Fisheries

(c):

—	On behalf of the Directorate of Fisheries:

—	Norges Sildesalgslag

—	Norges Råfisklag

—	Sunnmøre og Romsdal Fiskesalgslag

—	Vest-Norges Fiskesalgslag

—	Rogaland Fiskesalgslag S/L

—	Skagerakfisk S/L

(d):

—	Directorate of Fisheries

—	The Norwegian Coastguard

—	The Police and the Public Prosecuting Authority

ÓMAN

(a):

—	Ministry of Transport, Communications and Information Technology Directorate General of Maritime Affairs

(b),(c),(d),(f):

—	Muscat Governorate: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries Wealth and Water Resources Directorate General of Fisheries Resources Development Department of Surveillance & Fisheries Licensing

—	Salalah Governorate: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries Wealth and Water Resources Directorate General of Agriculture, Fisheries Wealth and Water Resources, DOFAR Governate Department of Fisheries Resources

(e),(g):

—	Muscat Governorate: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries Wealth and Water Resources Directorate General of Fisheries Resources Development Department of Surveillance & Fisheries Licensing

AN PHACASTÁIN

(a),(c),(e),(f):

—	Mercantile Marine Department

(b) agus (d):

—	Marine Fisheries Department/Directorate of Fisheries

(g):

—	Ministry of Livestock & Dairy Development

PANAMA

(a):

—	Autoridad de los Recursos Acuáticos de Panamá (Dirección General de Ordenación y Manejo Costero Integral) Autoridad Marítima de Panamá (Dirección General de Marina Mercante)

(b):

—	Dirección General de Ordenación y Manejo Costero Integral

—	Administración General Secretaría General Dirección General de Inspecciòn, Vigilancia y Control

NUA-GHUINE PHAPUA

(a),(b),(f),(g):

—	PNG National Fisheries Authority

(c),(d),(e):

—	PNG National Fisheries Authority (Head Office) Monitoring Control and Surveillance Division, Audit & Certification Unit

—	National Fisheries Authority, Audit & Certification Unit, Lae Port Office

—	National Fisheries Authority, Audit & Certification Unit, Madang Port Office

—	National Fisheries Authority, Audit & Certification Unit, Wewak Port Office

PEIRIÚ

(a) agus (b):

—	Director General de Extracción y Procesamiento pesquero del Ministerio and Direcciones Regionales de la Producción de los Gobiernos Regionales de Tumbes, Piura, Lambayeque, La Libertad, Ancash, Lima, Callao, Ica, Arquipa, Moquegua y Tacna

(c),(d),(e):

—	Dirección General de Seguimiento, Control y Vigilancia del Ministerio de Producción and Direcciones Regionales de la Producción de los Gobiernos Regionales de Tumbes, Piura, Lambayeque, La Libertad, Ancash, Lima, Callao, Ica, Arquipa, Moquegua y Tacna

(f):

—	Director General de Seguimiento, Control y Vigilancia del Ministerio de la Producción

(g):

—	Viceministro de Pesquería del Ministerio de la Producción

NA hOILEÁIN FHILÍPINEACHA

(a):

—	Maritime Industry Authority

(b) go (g):

—	Bureau for Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Department of Agriculture

AN RÚIS

(a) go (g):

—	Federal Agency for Fisheries, Territorial department of Barentsevo- Belomorskoye, Primorskoye, Zapadno-Baltiyskoye, Azovo- Chernomorskoye, Amur, Okhotsk, Sakhalin-Kuril, North-Eastern.

SAINT PIERRE AGUS MIQUELON

(a),(c) go (g):

—	DTAM – Service des affaires maritime et portuaires

(b):

—	Préfecture de Saint-Pierre et Miquelon

AN tSEINEAGÁIL

(a):

—	Agence nationale des Affaires maritimes

(b):

—	Ministre en charge de la Pêche

(c):

—	Direction de la Protection et de la Surveillance des Pêches (DPSP)

(d) go (g):

—	Direction de la Protection et de la Surveillance des Pêches (DPSP)

NA SÉISÉIL

(a):

—	Seychelles Maritime Safety Administration

(b):

—	Seychelles Licensing Authority

—	Seychelles Fishing Authority

OILEÁIN SHOLAIMH

(a):

—	Marine Division, Ministry of Infrastructure and Development (MID)

(b) go (g):

—	Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR)

AN AFRAIC THEAS

(a) go (g):

—	Branch: Fisheries Management, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

SRÍ LANCA

(a) go (g):

—	Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

SAN HÉILIN

(a):

—	Registrar of Shipping, St. Helena Government

(b),(d) go (g):

—	Senior Fisheries Officer, Directorate of Fisheries, St Helena Government

(c):

—	H.M. Customs, Government of St Helena

SURANAM

(a):

—	Maritime Authority Suriname

(b) go (g):

—	Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries

AN TÉAVÁIN

(a):

—	Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan

—	Maritime and Port Bureau, Ministry of Transportation and Communication

(b):

—	Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan

(c):

—	Fisheries Agency, Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan

(d):

—	Fisheries Agency, Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan

—	Coast Guard Administration, Executive Yuan

(e):

—	Fisheries Agency, Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan

(f):

—	Fisheries Agency, Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan

(g):

—	Fisheries Agency, Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan

CRÍOCHA AN DEISCIRT AGUS AN ANTARTAIGH DE CHUID NA FRAINCE (TAAF)

(a) go (g):

—	Monsieur le Préfet Administrateur supérieur des Terres Australes et Antarctiques Françaises

AN TÉALAINN

(a) agus (b):

—	The Department of Fisheries

—	The Marine Department

—	The Department of Fisheries

TRISTAN DA CUNHA

(a):

—	Administration Department

(b),(d):

—	Administration Department/Fisheries Department

(c),(e),(f),(g):

—	Fisheries Department

AN TÚINÉIS

(a):

—	Office de la Marine Marchande et des Ports/ Ministère du Transport

(b) go (d):

—	Arrondissement de la Pêche et de l’Aquaculture de Jendouba, Bizerte, Ariana, Tunis, Nabeul, Sousse, Monastir, Mahdia, and Gabes and Division de la Pêche et de l’Aquaculture de Sfax and Médenine

(e) go (g):

—	La Direction Générale de la Pêche et de l’Aquaculture/Ministère de l’Agriculture et des Ressources hydrauliques

AN TUIRC

(a) agus (b):

—	81 Provincial Directorates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs

(c):

—	General Directorate for Protection and Conservation, 81 Provincial Directorates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, and 24 Districts Directorate of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs.

(d):

—	General Directorate for Protection and Conservation, 81 Provincial Directorates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs and Turkish Coast Guard Command

(e) go (g):

—	General Directorate for Protection and Conservation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs

AN ÚCRÁIN

(a):

—	State Enterprise Maritime Administration of Illichivsk Sea Fishing Port State Enterprise Maritime Administration of Kerch Sea Fishing Port State Enterprise Office of Captain of Mariupol Sea Fishing Port State Enterprise Office of Captain of Sevastopol Sea Fishing Port

(c):

—

State Agency of Melioration and Fisheries of Ukraine

Department of the State Agency of Melioration and Fisheries of Ukraine in:

—	Black Sea Basin

—	Azov Basin

—	Chernihiv region

—	Chernivtsi region

—	Cherkasy region

—	Khmelnytskyi region

—	Kherson region

—	Kharkiv region

—	Ternopil region

—	Sumy region

—	Rivne region

—	Poltava region

—	Odesa region

—	Mykolaiv region

—	Lviv region

—	Luhansk region

—	Department of protection, use and reproduction of water

—	bioresources and regulation of fisheries in Kirvohrad region

—	Kyiv and Kyiv region

—	Ivano-Krankivsk region

—	Zaporizhia region

—	Zakarpattia region

—	Zhytomyr region

—	Donetsk region

—	Dnipropetrovsk region

—	Volyn region

—	Vinnytsia region

(b), (d) go (g):

—	State Agency of Melioration and Fisheries of Ukraine (Derzhrybagentstvo of Ukraine)

AONTAS NA nÉIMÍRÍOCHTAÍ ARABACHA

(a) go (g):

—	Fisheries Department, Ministry of Environment & Water (MOEW)

AN RÍOCHT AONTAITHE (3)

(a):

—	Sasana: Fishing Vessel Registry, Maritime and Coastguard Agency

—	Albain: Fishing Vessel Registry, Maritime and Coastguard Agency

—	An Bhreatain Bheag: Fishing Vessel Registry, Maritime and Coastguard Agency

—	Tuaisceart Éireann: Rannóg Mara agus Iascaigh DAERA, Foireann na Cigireachta Iascaigh, An Roinn Talmhaíochta, Comhshaoil agus Gnóthaí Tuaithe

—	Oileán Mhanann: Department Environment Food and Agriculture, Fisheries Directorate

—	Geansaí: Registrer of British Ships

—	Geirsí: Marine Resources, Growth Housing and Environment

(b):

—	Sasana: Marine Management Organisation

—	Albain: Marine Scotland

—	An Bhreatain Bheag: Welsh Government, Marine, Fisheries Division

—	Tuaisceart Éireann: Rannóg Mara agus Iascaigh DAERA, Foireann na Cigireachta Iascaigh, An Roinn Talmhaíochta, Comhshaoil agus Gnóthaí Tuaithe

—	Oileán Mhanann: Department Environment Food and Agriculture, Fisheries Directorate

—	Geansaí: Seafisheries, Committee for Economic Development, States of Guernsey

—	Geirsí: Marine Resources, Growth Housing and Environment

(c),(d),(e):

—	Sasana: Marine Management Organisation

—	Albain: Marine Scotland

—	An Bhreatain Bheag: Welsh Government, Marine, Fisheries Division

—	Tuaisceart Éireann: Foireann na Cigireachta Iascaigh, An Roinn Talmhaíochta, Comhshaoil agus Gnóthaí Tuaithe

—	Oileán Mhanann: Department Environment Food and Agriculture, Fisheries Directorate

—	Geansaí: Seafisheries, Committee for Economic Development, State of Guernsey

—	Geirsí: Marine Resources, Growth Housing and Environment

(f),(g):

Sasana, Albain, An Bhreatain Bheag, Tuaisceart Éireann, Oileán Mhanann, Geansaí, Geirsí: Marine Management Organisation

POBLACHT AONTAITHE NA TANSÁINE

(a) go (g):

—	Director of Fisheries Development

URAGUA

(a) go (g):

—	Dirección Nacional de Recursos Acuáticos (DINARA)

STÁIT AONTAITHE MHEIRICEÁ

(a):

—	United States Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

(b) go (g):

—	National Marine Fisheries Service

VEINISÉALA

(a) go (b):

—	Instituto Socialista de la Pesca y Acuicultura

VÍTNEAM

(a) go (b):

—	Directorate of Fisheries (D-FISH) at national level Sub-Departments of Capture Fisheries and Resources Protection at provincial level

—	Sub-Departments of Capture Fisheries

(d):

—	Fisheries Surveillance Department belonging to D-FISH

—	Inspections of Agriculture and Rural Development belonging to the provinces

—	Sub-Departments of Capture Fisheries and Resources Protection.

(e) agus (g):

—	Directorate of Fisheries (D-FISH)

VAILÍS AGUS FUTÚNA

(a):

—	Le Chef du Service des Douanes et des Affaires Maritimes

(b) agus (g):

—	Le Préfet, Administrateur supérieur

—	Le Directeur du Service d’Etat de l’Agriculture, de la Forêt et de la Pêche

ÉIMIN

(a):

—	Maritime Affairs Authority - Ministry of Transport

(b) go (g):

—	Production & Marketing Services Sector - Ministry of Fish Wealth and its branches from Aden, Alhodeidah, Hadramout, Almahara

(1) IO L 286, 29.10.2008, lch. 1.

(2) De bhun Airteagal 31 de Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1005/2008 ón gComhairle, an 5 Eanáir 2023, shainaithin an Coimisiún Eorpach Camarún mar thír neamh-chomhoibríoch sa chomhrac in aghaidh iascaireacht NNN (IO L 8, 11.1.2023, lgh. 4–15). I gcomhréir le hAirteagal 33 den Rialachán sin, liostaigh an Comhairle an Aontais Eorpaigh Camarún mar thríú tír neamh-chomhoibríoch sa chomhrac in aghaidh iascaireacht NNN (IO L 56, 23.2.2023, lgh. 26–28). Tá toirmeasc ar tháirgí iascaigh arna ngabháil ag soithí iascaireachta a bhfuil bratach Chamarún ar foluain acu a allmhairiú isteach san Aontas i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 38 den Rialachán sin.

(3) Infheidhme ón 1 Eanáir 2021 ar aghaidh.

13.4.2023

Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh

C 129/22

Cinneadh Uimh. 44/23/COL an 8 Márta 2023 chun imscrúdú foirmiúil a oscailt maidir le státchabhair líomhnaithe do Farice

Cuireadh chun barúlacha a chur isteach maidir le saincheisteanna státchabhrach de bhun Airteagal 1(2) de Chuid I de Phrótacal 3 a ghabhann leis an gComhaontú idir na Stáit CSTE maidir le hÚdarás Faireacháin agus Cúirt Bhreithiúnais a Bhunú

(2023/C 129/04)

Trí bhíthin an Chinnidh thuasluaite a bhfuil cóip de sa teanga bharántúil sna leathanaigh ar lorg na hachoimre seo, thug Údarás Faireacháin CSTE fógra d’údaráis na hÍoslainne faoin gcinneadh a rinne sé imeachtaí a thionscnamh de bhun Airteagal 1(2) de Chuid I de Phrótacal 3 a ghabhann leis an gComhaontú idir na Stáit CSTE maidir le hÚdarás Faireacháin agus Cúirt Bhreithiúnais a Bhunú.

Féadfaidh na páirtithe leasmhara barúlacha a chur isteach laistigh de mhí ón dáta foilsithe chuig an seoladh seo a leanas:

Údarás Faireacháin CSTE

Clárlann

Avenue des Arts/Kuntslaan 19H

1000 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

registry@eftasurv.int

Cuirfear na barúlacha in iúl d’údaráis na hÍoslainne. Féadfar céannacht an pháirtí leasmhair a chuir na barúlacha isteach a choinneáil faoi rún tar éis iarraidh a fháil i scríbhinn ina luaitear na cúiseanna atá leis an iarraidh.

Achoimre

Nós imeachta

An 23 Feabhra 2021, fuair Údarás Faireacháin CSTE gearán (“an gearán”) ó Sýn hf. (“Sýn”) maidir le Farice. Líomhain Sýn, inter alia: 1) go bhfuair Farice cúiteamh as costais a bhaineann le suirbhéanna a rinneadh mar ullmhúchán don tríú cábla fomhuirí (“Beart 1)”; agus 2) go ndearnadh sárú ar an oibleagáid neamhghníomhaíochta maidir le hinfheistíocht Farice sa tríú cábla fomhuirí idir an Íoslainn agus an Eoraip (“an cábla IRIS” nó “Beart 2”).

An 23 Márta 2021, fuair Údarás Faireacháin CSTE fógra foirmiúil ó údaráis na hÍoslainne maidir le hinfheistíocht sa chábla IRIS (“Beart 2”). An 26 Márta 2021, ghlac Údarás Faireacháin CSTE Cinneadh 023/21/COL maidir le Cabhair do Farice ehf. le haghaidh infheistíocht sa tríú cábla fomhuirí, inar thángthas ar an gconclúid nach raibh aon amhras ar Údarás Faireacháin CSTE ach go raibh an chabhair comhoiriúnach d’fheidhmiú Chomhaontú LEE, de bhun Airteagal 61(3)(c) de, agus dá bhrí sin nach raibh aon agóid aige i gcoinne chur chun feidhme an bhirt.

An 9 Iúil 2021, chuir Sýn iarraidh isteach faoi bhráid Chúirt CSTE faoi Airteagal 36 den Chomhaontú Faireacháin agus Cúirte (“SCA”), lenar iarradh Cinneadh Uimh. 023/21/COL an 26 Márta 2021 a neamhniú.

Le Breithiúnas an 1 Meitheamh 2022, chuir Cúirt CSTE Cinneadh 023/21/COL (1) ó Údarás Faireacháin CSTE ar neamhní.

Tuairisc ar an gcabhair lena mbaineann

Is é Farice ehf. an tairbhí líomhnaithe. (“Farice”). Is cuideachta phríobháideach faoi dhliteanas teoranta é Farice atá faoi úinéireacht iomlán Stát na hÍoslainne. Is é is cuspóir do Farice aistriú idirnáisiúnta sonraí a mhórdhíol idir tíortha trí chábla snáthoptaice, trí chórais cáblaí snáthoptaice a oibriú, agus trí sheirbhísí a dhíol i ndáil le gníomhaíochtaí den sórt sin. Oibríonn Farice dhá chábla fomhuirí a théann ón Íoslainn chuig codanna den Eoraip: FARICE-1 agus DANICE.

An 3 Meitheamh 2019, d’fhormheas Parlaimint na hÍoslainne rún maidir le beartas cumarsáide leictreonaí 2019 go 2033 (“an Beartas Teileachumarsáide”). Is iad cuspóirí an bheartais, inter alia, cumarsáid inrochtana agus éifeachtach a chur chun cinn agus slándáil an bhonneagair a ráthú. Chun na cuspóirí sin a bhaint amach, leagtar béim sa bheartas ar an ngá atá le trí chábla fomhuirí ghníomhacha chun an Íoslainn a nascadh leis an gcuid eile den Eoraip ó láithreáin tuirlingthe éagsúla.

Baineann an Cinneadh le dhá bheart.

Baineann Beart 1 le cúiteamh a thabhairt do Farice as taighde ar ghrinneall na farraige in obair ullmhúcháin i ndáil le cábla nua fomhuirí a thógáil idir an Íoslainn agus an Eoraip. Is é is bunús don obair agus don chúiteamh conradh a síníodh in 2018 idir an Ciste Teileachumarsáide (“an Ciste”) agus Farice. Ba é EUR 1.9 milliún an costas measta, nuair a síníodh an conradh.

Baineann Beart 2 le hinfheistíocht ó Farice sa chábla IRIS. Roghnaigh údaráis na hÍoslainne Farice chun an tríú cábla fomhuirí a thógáil agus a oibriú lena nascfar an Íoslainn agus an Eoraip, i.e. cábla IRIS. Rinne Stát na hÍoslainne Beart 2 a mhaoiniú trí mhéadú measta caipitil EUR 50 milliún i Farice, atá faoi úinéireacht iomlán Stát na hÍoslainne

Measúnú

Státchabhair a bheith ann

Ina Chinneadh, tagann Údarás Faireacháin CSTE ar an réamhthuairim nach féidir leis a chur as an áireamh go raibh Státchabhair i bhfabhar Farice i gceist le Beart 1.

Go sonrach, ní féidir le Údarás Faireacháin CSTE a chur as an áireamh go raibh buntáiste roghnaíoch i gceist leis na híocaíochtaí a rinne an Ciste le Farice as suirbhé fomhuirí a dhéanamh, ós rud é go bhfuil amhras air go ndearnadh na híocaíochtaí sin ar théarmaí an mhargaidh.

Thairis sin, ina Chinneadh, tagann Údarás Faireacháin CSTE ar an réamhthuairim go bhfuil Státchabhair i gceist le Beart 2.

Comhoiriúnacht na cabhrach

Maidir le comhoiriúnacht fhéideartha Bheart 1, níl aon argóintí chuige sin faighte ag Údarás Faireacháin CSTE, agus d’iarr sé ar údaráis na hÍoslainne argóintí den sórt sin a chur ar fáil.

Maidir le comhoiriúnacht fhéideartha Bheart 2, tugann Údarás Faireacháin CSTE dá aire gur faoi na Treoirlínte Leathanbhanda a dhéantar measúnú de ghnáth ar chomhoiriúnacht na cabhrach do chur i bhfeidhm céimneach líonraí leathanbhanda, chun críocha cumhdach, rochtain nó nascacht a dhaingniú.

Go ginearálta, is é príomhchuspóir na dTreoirlínte Leathanbhanda a chinntiú go mbeidh seirbhísí leathanbhanda ar fáil go forleathan d’úsáideoirí deiridh nó go mbeidh rochtain ar idirlíon ardluais. Dá bhrí sin, tá feidhm acu maidir le bearta cabhrach lena ndírítear ar chásanna nach gcuireann an margadh cumhdach leordhóthanach leathanbhanda ar fáil nó i gcás nach leor na dálaí rochtana. Os a choinne sin, ní luaitear nascacht idirnáisiúnta, slándáil, aistriú idirnáisiúnta sonraí, ná cáblaí fomhuirí, sna Treoirlínte Leathanbhanda, agus ní leagtar síos iontu go sonrach coinníollacha comhoiriúnachta maidir le bearta atá dírithe ar shaincheisteanna slándála a eascraíonn as easpa éagsúlacht gheografach agus easpa stóinseacht seirbhísí nascachta idirnáisiúnta.

Dá bhrí sin, i gcás inarb é an cuspóir iomarcaíocht, slándáil agus stóinseacht na seirbhísí nascachta idirnáisiúnta atá ar fáil cheana féin do chustaiméirí deiridh ar ardluas a mhéadú, is cosúil nach ionann Beart 2 agus an cineál ginearálta birt a chumhdaítear leis na Treoirlínte Leathanbhanda, is iad sin bearta a bhaineann le líonraí agus seirbhísí leathanbhanda a leathnú nó a thabhairt isteach.

Mar sin féin, níl sé soiléir d’Údarás Faireacháin CSTE ag an gcéim seo a mhéid atá feidhm ag na Treoirlínte Leathanbhanda maidir leis an measúnú comhoiriúnachta ar Bheart 2. Dá bhrí sin, d’iarr Údarás Faireacháin CSTE ar údaráis na hÍoslainne tuilleadh argóintí a chur ar fáil.

I gcás nach bhfuil feidhm ag na Treoirlínte Leathanbhanda maidir leis an mbeart atá faoi chaibidil, foráiltear le hAirteagal 61(3)(c) de Chomhaontú LEE go bhféadfaidh Údarás Faireacháin CSTE a dhearbhú go bhfuil cabhair comhoirúnach más é atá ann “cabhair chun forbairt gníomhaíochtaí eacnamaíocha áirithe nó limistéar eacnamaíoch áirithe a éascú, nuair nach ndéanann cabhair den sórt sin dochar do dhálaí trádála ar dhóigh a bheadh bunoscionn leis an leas comhchoiteann”. Dá bhrí sin, chun go ndearbhófaí an chabhair a bheith comhoiriúnach, ar an gcéad dul síos, ní mór go mbeartaítear í chun forbairt gníomhaíochtaí eacnamaíocha áirithe nó limistéar eacnamaíoch áirithe a éascú, agus ar an dara dul síos, ní mór nach dtéann sí i gcion go diúltach ar dhálaí trádála chomh mór sin le bheith bunoscionn leis an leas comhchoiteann.

Maidir leis sin, tháinig Údarás Faireacháin CSTE ar an réamhchonclúid go bhfuil amhras air maidir leis an ngá atá le Beart 2. Sular infheistigh sé i gcábla IRIS, chuaigh oibreoir príobháideach i dteagmháil le húdaráis na hÍoslainne agus moladh aige an tríú cábla fomhuirí a thógáil. Dá bhrí sin, cé nach léir d’Údarás Faireacháin CSTE ag an gcéim seo an raibh an tairiscint sin inchomparáide leis an tionscadal cábla IRIS, nó an amhlaidh an léirítear léi iarracht dul isteach sa mhargadh le haghaidh seirbhísí idirnáisiúnta nascachta sonraí, ní féidir le hÚdarás Faireacháin CSTE an fhéidearthacht a chur as an áireamh go bhféadfadh an margadh an toradh a bhí á lorg le Beart 2 a bhaint amach, rud a leagann amhras ar dhearbhú údaráis na hÍoslainne go raibh gá cliseadh margaidh dea-shainithe a leigheas.

Thairis sin, tá amhras ar Údarás Faireacháin CSTE maidir le comhréireacht Bheart 2. Cé go bhfuil Beart 2 ceaptha ag údaráis na hÍoslainne chun méid na cabhrach a theorannú, tagann Údarás Faireacháin CSTE ar an réamhchonclúid go leagtar amhras ar chomhréireacht fhoriomlán an bhirt toisc rogha eile a bheith ann a líomhnaítear a bheith níos costéifeachtaí, in éagmais údar a bheith leis an difríocht sa phraghas.

Ar deireadh, tháinig Údarás Faireacháin CSTE ar an réamhchonclúid go bhfuil amhras uirthi an bhfuil an tionchar diúltach ar an iomaíocht agus ar an trádáil teoranta go leordhóthanach.

Dá bhrí sin, tháinig Údarás Faireacháin CSTE ar an réamhchonclúid go bhfuil amhras uirthi an mó iad éifeachtaí dearfacha Bheart 2 ná an saobhadh iomaíochta a d’fhéadfadh a bheith i gceist leis agus an drochthionchar a d’fhéadfadh a bheith aige ar thrádáil.

Decision No 44/23/COL of 8 March 2023 to open a formal investigation into alleged state aid to Farice

1. Summary

The EFTA Surveillance Authority (“ESA”) wishes to inform Iceland that, having preliminarily assessed the alleged aid to Farice ehf. (“Farice”) for performing a seabed survey (“Measure 1”) and for investment in a third submarine cable (“Measure 2”), it has doubts as to whether Measure 1 constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and as to whether Measures 1 and 2 are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. ESA has therefore decided to open a formal investigation procedure pursuant to Articles 4(4), 6 and 13 of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (“Protocol 3”). ESA has based its decision on the following considerations.

2. Procedure

(1)

By letter dated 27 January 2021, the Icelandic authorities initiated pre-notification discussions with ESA concerning their plans to increase capital in Farice, in order to invest in a third submarine cable between Iceland and Europe (“the IRIS cable”), i.e. Measure 2 (2).

(2)

On 23 February 2021, ESA received a complaint (“the complaint”) from Sýn hf. (“Sýn”) regarding Farice (3). Sýn alleged that Farice received public service compensation from the Icelandic authorities in violation of the SGEI rules (4), including compensation for costs related to surveys conducted in preparation for a possible third submarine cable. Sýn also alleged a violation of the standstill obligation as regards Farice’s investment in the IRIS cable.

(3)

On 23 February 2021, ESA forwarded the complaint to the Icelandic authorities and invited them to provide comments by 25 March 2021 (5).

(4)

On 23 March 2021, ESA received a formal notification from the Icelandic authorities regarding Measure 2 (6). On 26 March 2021, ESA adopted Decision 023/21/COL on Aid to Farice ehf. for investment in a third submarine cable.

(5)

By email dated 25 March 2021, the Icelandic authorities requested an extension of the deadline to provide comments on the complaint. ESA extended the deadline to 31 March 2021. On 31 March 2021, the Icelandic authorities provided ESA with their initial comments on the complaint (7).

(6)

On 9 July 2021, Sýn lodged an application with the EFTA Court under Article 36 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement (“SCA”), seeking the annulment of Decision No 023/21/COL of 26 March 2021.

(7)

On 20 January 2022, ESA sent a request for information to the Icelandic authorities concerning the complaint (8). On 16 March 2022, the Icelandic authorities provided their response to the request for information (9).

(8)

On 1 June 2022, the EFTA Court annulled Decision No 023/21/COL (10).

(9)

On 21 June 2022, ESA sent the Icelandic authorities a second request for information concerning the complaint (11). The Icelandic authorities responded on 20 September 2022 (12).

(10)

On 8 November 2022, ESA had a meeting with a representative of Sýn (13).

3. Description of the measures

3.1. Background

(11)

Farice is a private limited liability company established in Iceland. It was founded in 2002 by Icelandic and Faroese parties. According to its articles of association, the purpose of Farice is the wholesale of international data transfer between countries through a fibre optic cable, the operations of fibre optic cable systems, and the sale of services in relation to such activities. The Icelandic State acquired Farice in full in March 2019 following the classification of international submarine cables as infrastructure. All of Farice’s long-term borrowing comes from the Icelandic Treasury

(12)

Farice operates two submarine cables running from Iceland to parts of Europe: FARICE-1 and DANICE. FARICE-1 connects Iceland with Scotland, with a branch unit to the Faroe Islands. DANICE connects Iceland with Denmark. FARICE-1 and DANICE are the only submarine cables running from Iceland to Europe and they intersect in the Atlantic Ocean. A third submarine cable, Greenland Connect, runs from Iceland to Canada via Greenland. Greenland Connect is owned and operated by Tele Greenland. It terminates in Iceland and its traffic is directed through FARICE-1 and DANICE on the way to Europe. It is possible to buy services from Tele Greenland to mainland Canada and from there to New York.

(13)

Between 2010 and 2012, the Icelandic authorities engaged in a series of measures for the restructuring of Farice, due to its financial difficulties. During the same period, the Icelandic authorities submitted various State aid notifications to ESA. These were later withdrawn because the Icelandic authorities concluded that the SGEI Decision applied to these measures (14). On 19 July 2013, ESA sent a comfort letter to the Icelandic authorities noting that Article 3 of the SGEI Decision exempted the Icelandic authorities from the prior notification obligation under Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 SCA (15).

(14)

The first public service contract between Farice and the Telecommunications Fund (“the Fund”), representing the Icelandic authorities, was entered into on 12 April 2012.

(15)

In November 2018, the Minister for Transport and Local Government submitted a proposal to the Icelandic Parliament for a resolution on an electronic communications policy 2019 to 2033 (“the Telecommunication Policy”). The objectives of the policy are, inter alia, to promote accessible and effective communications and to guarantee the security of infrastructure. To achieve those objectives, the policy emphasises that three active submarine cables are needed to connect Iceland with the rest of Europe from different landing sites. As a geographically remote country, effective international connections are a prerequisite for the development of Iceland as a modern technology-based society. A serious disruption in international connectivity would cause major damage to the Icelandic economy, and society as a whole.

(16)

Between 2017 and 2020, the Ministry of Transport and Local Government, and the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs received several proposals from Sýn regarding the construction of a third submarine cable. The proposals included both an independent project and a collaboration with Celtic Norse AS. These proposals did not entail financing in full by private investors but required cooperation with the Icelandic State and/or Farice.

(17)

On 21 December 2018, Farice signed a new public service contract with the Fund regarding the Icelandic authorities’ work on the Telecommunications Policy (“the 2018 PSO Contract”). Farice was engaged to start preparations for the possible construction of a new submarine cable between Iceland and Europe. Farice was compensated for the costs of the preparation work that it undertook on behalf of the Fund, which also included compensation for seabed research to be carried out by Farice in 2019, i.e. Measure 1. The Icelandic State’s participation in further investment or costs for a third cable was neither secured nor structured at that time.

(18)

In January 2019, Sýn submitted a formal request for funding of seabed research in preparation for the introduction of the submarine cable project. In February 2019, the Fund refused to engage in any discussions with Sýn, referring to the public service contract concluded with Farice in December 2018, according to which Farice was entrusted with seabed research as an intermediary.

(19)

On 3 June 2019, the Icelandic Parliament approved the Telecommunications Policy.

(20)

In December 2019, Sýn and the Board of the Fund had a meeting during which Sýn presented its case for a third submarine cable between Iceland and Ireland. Sýn offered to build a submarine cable for remuneration and required a guarantee that Farice would change its operating model to a so-called “carrier’s carrier” model.

(21)

In March 2020, the Fund engaged an independent expert to evaluate the feasibility of Sýn’s and Farice’s third cable projects. The expert’s report was delivered in April 2020. According to Sýn, the report concluded that the project proposed by Sýn was more cost effective. According to the Icelandic authorities, the expert was instructed not to make recommendations. However, the report included recommendations and relied on available, but allegedly unverified, data from Farice and Sýn.

(22)

By letter of 29 April 2020, the Ministry of Transport and Local Government shared the results of the report with Farice and stated that Farice would be responsible for the project and the envisaged owner and operator of the new submarine cable. The Ministry urged Farice to take account of the fact that Sýn’s proposal had been considered more cost effective by the expert. The Ministry stated that it found Sýn’s proposal to change the operational model of Farice unacceptable.

(23)

In May 2020, Sýn and Farice held a meeting to explore the details and validity of Sýn’s proposal and to confirm pricing and quality from key suppliers. According to the Icelandic authorities, Sýn was not able to confirm the prices because the key suppliers had not been willing to confirm their prices. As the foundation for the discussions between Farice and Sýn was the project’s cost effectiveness, which was based on the prices submitted, the discussions were terminated.

(24)

Later in May 2020, the Fund communicated to Sýn that it considered the expiry of the offers to be unacceptable. It further stated that it would therefore not engage in any further discussions with Sýn. It was further stressed that the Fund was not responsible for the project since its role was limited to the provision of funds.

(25)

On 23 February 2021, Sýn lodged a complaint with ESA. Sýn submitted that payments to Farice from the Icelandic State since 2013 had erroneously been classified as a public service compensation as the conditions to be considered as services of a general economic interest had never been met. It further submitted that there was an ongoing breach of State aid rules related to the introduction of a new submarine cable.

(26)

On 23 March 2021, the Icelandic authorities formally notified ESA of their intention to provide aid to Farice for investment in the third cable, i.e. Measure 2. On 26 March 2021, ESA adopted Decision No 023/21/COL approving the measure. That decision was later annulled by the EFTA Court.

3.2. Measure 1

(27)

According to Article 1A of the 2018 PSO Contract between Farice and the Fund, the “parties [to the agreement] agree that the Fund will compensate Farice for seabed research to be carried out in 2019 for a possible optic fibre cable between Iceland and Europe (Ireland) according to article 12 of this contract”.

(28)

In Article 12 of the same contract, it is further stated that “[t]he Fund intends to do a seabed survey on a route between Europe (Ireland) and Iceland for an optic fibre cable to be possibly laid in the near future. Farice undertakes the execution of the projects as an intermediary. Preliminary time and cost schedule is described in annex 1. Farice shall aim to deliver a final marine route survey report to the Fund before December 31, 2019”. The temporal scope of the survey was later extended to 2021.

(29)

According to annex 1, the compensated costs related to the survey were: 1) a desk top study; 2) survey; 3) inshore survey; 4) main survey (excluding inshore survey); 5) reporting and maps; and 6) overhead costs. The costs were estimated at EUR 1,9 million.

(30)

In accordance with the contract, Farice undertook the survey in the years 2019, 2020 and 2021. Payments for third party works, for example the work performed by EGS (16) (the main survey contactor) were invoiced to the Fund based on costs incurred. Work performed by Farice employees was invoiced on the basis of an hourly rate. Additionally, Farice invoiced an administration fee for general administration costs in 2019.

3.3. Measure 2

(31)

In relation to the Icelandic authorities’ work on the Telecommunications Policy, the Icelandic authorities selected Farice to build and operate a third submarine cable connecting Iceland and Europe, i.e. the IRIS cable. Measure 2 relates to the financing by the Icelandic State of the IRIS cable through an estimated EUR 50 million capital increase in Farice, which is wholly owned by the Icelandic State (17).

(32)

According to the Icelandic authorities, Farice was chosen because it is the only entity that: (i) currently operates submarine cables from Iceland to Europe, (ii) has extensive experience in such operations, and (iii) was able to work fast in seeing the project through within the desired timeframe.

(33)

Farice is currently operated on commercial terms without financial support from the State (18) and offers services on two distinct markets: the market for international connectivity (“international data transfer market”) and the data centre market (“DC market”).

(34)

The primary objective of the measure and the IRIS cable project is to enhance security and reduce the vulnerability of international connectivity to and from Iceland. The secondary objective is to shorten the digital distance between Iceland and Europe, by reducing data latency.

(35)

The new submarine cable is in principle expected to complement the existing submarine cable infrastructure. According to the Icelandic authorities, the interconnection to the new cable will be technologically neutral, provided that instructions and recommendations are followed (19).

(36)

Moreover, according to the Icelandic authorities, Farice grants effective wholesale access to the system on an open and non-discriminatory basis and those access obligations will be enforced irrespective of any change in ownership, management or operation of the infrastructure.

(37)

The eligible costs of Measure 2 are the investment costs related to the new cable, costs relating to survey of the seabed and the optimal path of the cable (20), construction of landing sites and project management. The costs are considered investment costs, including project management costs which are directly related to the investment project. The maximum aid intensity is 100 % of the eligible costs. The board of directors of Farice authorised the capital increase for established costs in intervals during the construction period of the new cable. According to the Icelandic authorities, any overcompensation is controlled retroactively through a capital decrease, dividend payments or by other available means.

(38)

Farice signed a contract with SubCom LLC, a global undersea fibre optic cable system supply company, to lay the IRIS cable, after having elicited offers from three different suppliers. On 11 November 2022, SubCom formally handed over the IRIS cable, which is expected to be ready for service in the first quarter of 2023 (21).

3.4. The Complaint

(39)

As previously mentioned, on 23 February 2021, Sýn submitted a complaint to ESA regarding alleged unlawful State aid measures in favour of Farice. In summary, the complaint concerns three measures:

1.	The payment of compensation for services of general economic interest (“SGEI”) from the Icelandic authorities to Farice for the public service obligation (“PSO”) of providing international connectivity for electronic communication (“the SGEI measure”);

2.	compensation paid to Farice for carrying out a seabed survey as an intermediary, i.e. Measure 1; and

3.	non-compliance with the stand-still obligation in relation to the roll-out of the third submarine cable between Iceland and Europe, i.e. Measure 2.

(40)

The SGEI measure, covered by Sýn’s complaint, was not the subject of the annulled Decision No 023/21/COL, nor the judgment of the EFTA Court in Case E-4/21. Therefore, this measure is not the subject of this Decision, and is currently being processed separately in an open complaint case (22). Conversely, Measures 1 and 2 are the subject of this Decision.

(41)

As regards Measure 1, Sýn submitted that Iceland had under the 2018 PSO Contract agreed to compensate Farice for seabed research to be carried out in 2019. The agreement was later extended (see section 3.2).

(42)

Sýn argued in its complaint that the compensation for the seabed research did not fulfil any of the SGEI criteria, whether under the Altmark conditions (23), the SGEI Decision (24), or the SGEI Framework (25). In particular, Sýn argued that seabed research could not be qualified as a service of general economic interest, and even if it could be, no parameters for the calculation of compensation for such a service had been established.

(43)

As regards Measure 2, Sýn asserted in its complaint that the Icelandic authorities seemed to have entrusted Farice with the roll-out of a new submarine cable funded by the State. In Sýn’s view this constituted a breach of the EEA State aid rules. Sýn was unaware that at the time they submitted the complaint, ESA and the Icelandic authorities were engaged in pre-notification discussion regarding the roll-out to the new submarine cable (26).

(44)

Therefore, Sýn submitted that the actions of the Icelandic authorities related to the roll-out of a new submarine cable, including the payment for seabed research under the auspices of a public service obligation, constituted a breach of the EEA State aid rules, which called for action by ESA.

3.5. Comments of the Icelandic authorities

(45)

The Icelandic authorities have provided their views as regards Measures 1 and 2. These views were expressed during the notification procedure leading up to Decision 023/21/COL (27), as well as in replies to questions sent to them by ESA in connection to the complaint (28).

3.5.1. Regarding Measure 1

(46)

The Icelandic authorities have maintained that the payments to Farice related to the seabed survey did not constitute compensation for a public service, even though contractual provisions related to the survey were included in the 2018 PSO contract (29).

(47)

Instead, the Icelandic authorities have stated that the work related to the survey was allocated to Farice on market terms, in line with the market economy operator principle. Specifically, the Icelandic authorities contend that the award of the seabed survey did not grant Farice an economic advantage that an undertaking could not have obtained in the absence of State intervention, and that it was, in essence, a service assignment, for which Farice was paid the incurred costs. In the view of the Icelandic authorities, this is demonstrated by the fact that the Fund, and not Farice, retains all ownership of survey results and that Farice did not de facto make a profit for administering the survey.

(48)

Moreover, the Icelandic authorities have submitted that Measure 1 did not distort or threaten to distort competition and did not have any effect on trade between the Contracting Parties.

(49)

Specifically, the Icelandic authorities stated that the measure did not grant Farice a stronger competitive position than it would have had if the survey had not been undertaken, and that Farice was not relieved of expenses it would otherwise have had to bear in the course of its day-to-day business operations. The Icelandic authorities had full discretion to utilise the seabed survey in any way they saw fit and no utilization guarantees were granted to Farice. Therefore, the Icelandic authorities contend that the award of the seabed survey did not strengthen the position of Farice as compared with other undertakings.

(50)

Finally, the Icelandic authorities are of the view that the Fund was exempt from the procurement rules when awarding a contract of carrying out the seabed survey, as it was an essential part of preparing the IRIS cable project and therefore a factor in providing a public communications network.

(51)

Consequently, the Icelandic authorities argue that Measure 1 does not constitute State aid.

3.5.2. Regarding Measure 2

(52)

The Icelandic authorities consider Measure 2 to constitute State aid, which is compatible with Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, and that the measure falls outside the scope of the Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to rapid deployment of broadband networks (“the 2014 Broadband Guidelines”) (30).

(53)

In this regard, the Icelandic authorities note that the measure contributes to a well-defined objective of common interest, i.e. to enhance the security of international connectivity to and from Iceland. The aid measure serves to significantly reduce the vulnerability of Iceland’s international telecommunications network in case of major failures of the current systems.

(54)

Further, as regards the need for State intervention, the Icelandic authorities contend that market failure necessitates State participation in the IRIS cable project. Specifically, the Icelandic authorities note that Farice is the only operator of submarine cables connecting Iceland to Europe, and that despite some interest from private parties to lay similar cables in the past, none of those plans have materialised (31). The Icelandic authorities argue that three main causes have adversely affected the feasibility of other submarine projects to the point where none of them materialized: First, laying a single cable to Iceland without having secured redundancy in connections without material cost through another cable has proven problematic. Second, the small size of the Icelandic market is a natural hindrance. Third, the uncertainty of income from international data centre operators disincentivises investment.

(55)

Moreover, the Icelandic authorities point to the fact that Farice required public service compensation from 2012 to 2018 to operate the two existing cables, i.e. FARICE-1 and DANICE, and that Farice’s current revenues do not support investment in the IRIS cable.

(56)

Consequently, in the absence of a realistic chance of private actors building the submarine infrastructure needed to secure international connectivity to Iceland, and since Farice’s current revenues do not support investment in a third cable, the Icelandic authorities found it necessary to provide Farice with State aid to lay the IRIS cable.

(57)

Moreover, the Icelandic authorities contend that Measure 2 was proportional. In this regard, they note that only established costs were financed through the capital increase. Moreover, the ex post control, including a review of any expenses, will keep costs to the minimum necessary.

(58)

Furthermore, the Icelandic authorities have consistently argued that the IRIS project is not subject to public procurement rules, as it is exempt from the Procurement Act (32), with reference to Article 10 of the Act, cf. Article 8 of the Procurement Directive (33), as the Act and the Directive do not apply to contracts for the principal purpose of permitting the contracting authorities to provide or exploit public communications networks or to provide to the public one or more electronic communications services.

(59)

However, when choosing a subcontractor to lay the cable, Farice engaged in discussions with three suppliers, and selected the most economically efficient offer, having taken account of all relevant considerations.

(60)

As regards the expert report that concluded that the proposal of Sýn was more cost effective than the one from Farice, the Icelandic authorities argue that the cost estimate used by the expert was not verified. Further, that Sýn specifically notified the Icelandic authorities that the supposed offer from Vodafone International was no longer valid. Moreover, the conditions on the operational function of the new cable set by the Sýn, as well as concerns regarding national security and critical infrastructure contributed to the decision to entrust Farice with the building of the new submarine cable. Finally, the proposition of Sýn was based on a different business model, not only for the purposes of the new cable but also Farice’s operation through the FARICE-1 and DANICE cables. Therefore, the business proposition of Sýn was not relevant for the purposes of the determination of proportionality of the aid measure. Consequently, the Icelandic authorities consider Measure 2 to be proportional.

(61)

Finally, as regards limited negative effects on competition, the Icelandic authorities note that the new infrastructure is principally expected to complement the other connections by providing enhanced security for international connectivity favouring the general public and general economic activities in Iceland. Therefore, the Icelandic authorities consider the IRIS cable to not have a material impact on competitiveness of other European markets compared to Iceland. As regards any negative effects the measure might have on the market for international data transfer or the related DC market, the Icelandic authorities consider those effects vastly outweighed by the positive effects of the measure.

3.6. ESA Decision No 023/21/COL

(62)

On 26 March 2021, ESA adopted Decision No 023/21/COL, concluding that Measure 2, i.e. the capital increase to finance the investment in the IRIS cable, constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. However, as ESA found that no doubts were raised as to the compatibility of the measure with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, it decided not to raise objections to the implementation of the measure.

(63)

ESA noted that the compatibility of State aid for the introduction of broadband networks was normally assessed under the 2014 Broadband Guidelines. However, since the measure specifically targeted the security issues raised by the lack of geographical diversity, it fell outside the scope of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines. ESA stated that it would nevertheless apply the principles of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines by analogy to the extent that they were relevant, because those guidelines were the most detailed guidance available for assessing the compatibility of State aid to broadband infrastructure projects with the EEA Agreement.

(64)

Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement provides that ESA may declare compatible “aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest”. Therefore, in order to declare aid compatible, first, the aid must be intended to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas and, second, the aid must not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest (34).

(65)

Under the first condition, ESA examines how the aid facilitates the development of certain economic activities or areas. Under the second condition, ESA weighs up the positive effects of the aid for the development of said activities or areas and the negative effects of the aid in terms of distortions of competition and adverse effects on trade (i.e. conducts a balancing test).

(66)

Concerning the first condition, ESA concluded that Measure 2 facilitated the development in the market for international data transfer services specifically and the markets for electronic communications services in general. Furthermore, ESA found that the selection of Farice, as owner and operator of the third cable, and the selection of a cable manufacturer and installer was exempted from the Icelandic Procurement Act. Further, ESA did not have reasons to believe that the measure was in breach of other relevant EEA provisions.

(67)

Concerning the second condition, ESA concluded that the amount of aid granted through Measure 2 was limited to what was necessary to achieve its objective and therefore proportional. ESA reached this conclusion, inter alia, on the basis that the aid amount was limited to the actual costs of the measure and subject to ex post control.

(68)

Furthermore, ESA concluded that Measure 2 would not have a material impact on the competitiveness of other EEA markets compared to Iceland, as investment in the IRIS cable was, in and of itself, unlikely to materially alter the dynamics of intra-EEA trade on the relevant market.

(69)

As regards the potential effect on the DC market, ESA noted that the data centre market was not a single market of universal services, since the digital needs of businesses were highly dependent on the applications hosted and operated in the data centres. ESA also noted that, while data centres might be more inclined to invest in projects in Iceland, due to extended capacity and security of the international connection network following the construction of a third cable, that was only one of multiple factors that would influence such a decision. Other factors, such as electricity prices, start-up costs and regulatory environment also influenced such decisions. ESA found that those factors were not altered by the measure.

(70)

Consequently, ESA found that the Icelandic authorities had demonstrated that the socio-economic benefits of Measure 2 outweighed any potential adverse effects on competition or trade between the Contracting Parties, given the safeguards in place to minimise such adverse effects.

3.7. EFTA Court Judgment in Case E-4/21

(71)

On 1 June 2022, the EFTA Court annulled ESA’s Decision No 023/21/COL. The Court concluded that ESA should have opened a formal investigation procedure, as ESA had at its disposal information and evidence at the time, which should, objectively, have raised doubts or serious difficulties regarding whether the capital increase to finance the laying of the IRIS cable was compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

(72)

In particular, the EFTA Court found that ESA was aware of documents that called into question the information at its disposal and on which it relied in the contested decision, without going beyond a mere examination of the information submitted by the Icelandic authorities. These documents related, inter alia, to Sýn’s complaint of 23 February 2022 and annexes thereto. Specifically, the Court noted a document comparing the proposals of Sýn and Farice, and an email dated 29 May 2020, regarding Sýn’s inability to confirm the prices of its proposal. By not obtaining further information on whether Sýn was actually able to confirm its prices, or whether it had been given that opportunity, the Court concluded that ESA failed to satisfy its obligation to conduct a diligent and impartial examination of the notified measure so that it had at its disposal the most complete and reliable information.

(73)

Furthermore, the Court found that Sýn tried to enter the market for international connectivity services, according to the information available to ESA. Yet, in the contested decision, ESA did not consider factors such as potential competitors on the wholesale market for international connectivity, public consultation of stakeholders and entry barriers to that market.

(74)

Finally, the Court found that ESA did not adequately state its reasons for concluding that the notified measure fell outside the scope of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, and that even though ESA stated in the contested decision that it would apply the guidelines by analogy, where relevant, the Court found little, if any, trace of the principles in the guidelines actually being applied.

(75)

On the basis of, inter alia, the above, the Court concluded that there was consistent and objective evidence that demonstrated that ESA adopted the contested decision despite the existence of doubts. Consequently, the Court annulled the Decision.

4. Presence of State aid

4.1. Introduction

(76)

Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows: “Save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement”.

(77)

The qualification of a measure as aid within the meaning of this provision requires the following cumulative conditions to be met: (i) the measure must be granted by the State or through State resources; (ii) it must confer an advantage on an undertaking; (iii) favour certain undertakings (selectivity); and (iv) threaten to distort competition and affect trade.

4.2. Measure 1

(78)

In the following chapters, ESA will assess whether the payments from the Fund to Farice for carrying out a seabed survey involve State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

4.2.1. State resources

(79)

According to Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, a measure must be granted by the State or through State resources to constitute State aid.

(80)

The Fund has the task of promoting the development of telecommunications in Iceland. The Fund was formed in 2006 on the basis of Act No 132/2005 on the Telecommunication Fund. The main role of the Fund is to allocate funds to: projects aimed at the development of telecommunication infrastructure; projects that contribute to the safety and competitiveness of society in the field of electronic communications; and other telecommunication projects (35).

(81)

According to Article 1 of Act No 132/2005, the Fund is under the ownership of the Icelandic State and its administration falls under the authority of the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Innovation.

(82)

ESA therefore preliminarily concludes that the payments from the Fund to Farice for carrying out a seabed survey constitute State resources.

4.2.2. Advantage

(83)

According to Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, a measure must confer an advantage upon an undertaking. An advantage, within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, is any economic benefit which an undertaking could not have obtained under normal market conditions (36), thus placing it in a more favourable position than its competitors (37).

(84)

The Icelandic authorities have argued that Measure 1 was concluded on market terms, in line with the market economy operator principle. In order to establish whether or not a transaction carried out by a public body is in line with normal market conditions, ESA will apply the market economy operator test (“MEO test”), comparing the behaviour of the public body to that of similar private economic operators under normal market conditions (38).

(85)

In that respect, it is not relevant whether the intervention constitutes a rational means for the public bodies to pursue public policy considerations. Similarly, the profitability or unprofitability of the beneficiary is not in itself a decisive indicator for establishing whether or not the economic transaction in question is in line with market conditions. The decisive element is whether the public bodies acted as a market economy operator would have done in a similar situation (39).

(86)

Moreover, whether a State intervention is in line with market conditions must be examined on an ex ante basis, having regard to the information available at the time the intervention was decided upon. If a State argues that it acted as a market economy operator it must, where there is doubt, provide evidence showing that the decision to carry out the transaction was taken on the basis of economic evaluations comparable to those which, in similar circumstances, a rational market economy operator (with characteristics similar to those of the public body concerned) would have had carried out to determine the profitability or economic advantages of the transaction (40).

(87)

Concerning Measure 1, it is undisputed that the contractual provisions concerning the seabed survey and the payments for that survey were placed in the 2018 PSO Contract between the Fund and Farice, namely Article 1A, 12 and Annex 1. According to the Icelandic authorities, no other provisions of the 2018 PSO Contract applied to the seabed survey (41).

(88)

ESA notes that the Icelandic authorities essentially argue that Articles 1A, 12, and annex 1 of the 2018 PSO Contract do not, in fact, form part of that contract, but are instead a separate service contract made on market terms. This fact raises doubts as to whether the Fund was operating as a market economy operator, when it charged Farice with performing the seabed survey, since such operators would in general conclude clear and concise contracts when purchasing a similar service.

(89)

Indeed, it appears that the Fund contracted Farice to perform a service, without including in the contract any provisions concerning cost overruns, specifics regarding the scope of the survey, contingencies for failure to perform the obligations of the contract, or specifics regarding what costs could be covered by the service contract. According to documentation from and statements made by the Icelandic authorities, the temporal scope of the survey was later extended, and final costs ran over the cost estimate in annex 1.

(90)

Moreover, ESA has asked the Icelandic authorities to provide all documentation of expert evaluations or independent studies of the cost of carrying out the seabed survey, if any such evaluations or studies were carried out prior to the start of the 2018 PSO Contract. However, according to the Icelandic authorities, no such evaluation exists. Additionally, the Fund does not seem to have considered alternative providers. Therefore, ESA has doubts as to whether the Fund’s decision to carry out the transaction was taken on the basis of economic evaluations comparable to those which, in similar circumstances, a rational market economy operator would have taken, as it appears that the Fund committed to paying Farice for a service, without making an evaluation of eventual costs and alternative providers.

(91)

Furthermore, the Icelandic authorities have stated that Farice did not de facto make a profit from performing the survey for the Fund. Moreover, it is unclear to ESA whether the Fund derived any economic value from its ownership of the survey results. In fact, since the survey forms part of the preparatory works for a submarine cable, which the Icelandic authorities themselves consider a security measure, it would appear that the purpose of the survey was not economic in nature. Therefore, ESA doubts that the Fund acted as an economic operator, since it rather seems to have been pursuing public policy aims when commissioning the survey.

(92)

Finally, as the Icelandic authorities have already stated that the payments to Farice for the performance of the subsea survey did not entail compensation for a public service obligation, ESA does not see the need at this time to specifically examine whether Measure 1 fulfils the Altmark criteria, or the provisions of the SGEI Decision or Framework.

(93)

Consequently, ESA has doubts whether Measure 1 was concluded on market terms and cannot exclude that an advantage may have been granted in favour of Farice. Accordingly, the Icelandic authorities are invited to comment on this and submit relevant evidence.

4.2.3. Selectivity

(94)

In order for a measure to involve State aid it must be selective in that it favours “certain undertakings or the production of certain goods”. Measure 1 concerns a contract between the Fund and Farice. Therefore, Farice is the only potential beneficiary. Other undertakings have not concluded similar contracts with the Fund or the Icelandic State. Accordingly, the alleged advantage of Measure 1 would be a selective advantage, as it only concerns one particular undertaking.

(95)

It is therefore ESA’s preliminary view that it cannot be excluded that a selective economic advantage was granted to Farice.

4.2.4. Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Contracting Parties

(96)

To qualify as State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, a measure must be liable to distort competition and affect trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement. According to settled case-law, the mere fact that a measure strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-EEA trade is considered to be sufficient, in order to conclude that the measure is likely to distort competition and affect trade between the Contracting Parties (42).

(97)

The Icelandic authorities have argued that the measure in question did not distort or threaten to distort competition and did not have any effect on trade between the Contracting Parties, as the measure did not grant Farice a stronger competitive position than it would have had if the survey had not been undertaken. Moreover, they argue that Farice was not relieved of expenses it would otherwise have had to bear in the course of its day-to-day business operations. Therefore, the Icelandic authorities contend that the award of the seabed survey did not strengthen the position of Farice as compared with other undertakings, neither financially nor in other aspects.

(98)

On this point ESA notes that it is not obliged to establish the real effect of the aid on the market, but is only required to show that the aid is liable to distort competition and affect trade. Therefore, for all practical purposes, a distortion of competition within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement is generally found to exist when the State grants a financial advantage to an undertaking in a liberalised sector where there is, or could be, competition (43).

(99)

Measure 1 concerns payments made to Farice for a seabed survey. The costs covered by those payments included subcontracting costs, as well as Farice’s overhead costs, including hourly rates for Farice staff and a general administration fee. Therefore, Measure 1 seems to have placed Farice in a better financial position than it would have been in the absence of Measure 1.

(100)

Moreover, there are multiple undertakings active in the EEA that provide seabed survey services. This is also demonstrated by the fact that Farice itself subcontracted a large portion of the survey.

(101)

Consequently, ESA has doubts as to whether it can be excluded that Measure 1 was liable to distort competition and affect trade within the EEA. The Icelandic authorities are invited to comment and submit relevant evidence on this.

4.2.5. Conclusion

(102)

In light of the above, ESA cannot exclude that Measure 1 entailed State aid.

4.3. Measure 2

(103)

It is uncontested between Sýn and the Icelandic authorities that Measure 2, i.e. the capital increase in Farice to facilitate the investment in the IRIS cable, constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement (44).

(104)

ESA therefore preliminary concludes that Measure 2 constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

5. Aid scheme or individual aid

(105)

ESA notes that Measures 1 and 2 were not granted on the basis of a scheme (45). Measure 1, if found to be aid, would therefore be individual aid. Measure 2 constitutes individual aid.

6. Lawfulness of the aid

(106)

Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (“Protocol 3”): “The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. … The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision”.

(107)

The Icelandic authorities did not notify Measure 1 to ESA. ESA therefore concludes that, in the event that Measure 1 is deemed to involve aid, the Icelandic authorities have not respected their obligations under Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3. In this event, Measure 1 would be unlawful aid.

(108)

The Icelandic authorities implemented Measure 2 after ESA approved it by Decision 023/21/COL. However, with the annulment of ESA’s approval decision by the EFTA Court, Measure 2 became unlawful.

7. Compatibility of the aid

7.1. Introduction

(109)

In derogation from the general prohibition of State aid laid down in Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, aid may be declared compatible if it can benefit from one of the derogations enumerated in the Agreement.

(110)

Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement provides that ESA may declare compatible “aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest”. Therefore, in order to declare the aid compatible, first, the aid must be intended to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas and, second, the aid must not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest (46).

(111)

7.2. Compatibility of Measure 1

(112)

The Icelandic authorities have maintained that Measure 1 does not constitute State aid (see Section 3.5.1). Further, they have also stated that despite the fact that the contractual obligations concerning Measure 1 were included in the 2018 PSO Contract between the Fund and Farice, the measure does not constitute compensation for a public service obligation.

(113)

Therefore, it would appear that the compatibility of Measure 1, should it be found to constitute aid, could not be examined under Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement and even if it were, ESA has doubts that the Measure 1 is in line with the provisions of the SGEI Decision or Framework. The Icelandic authorities have not, at this stage, brought forward any other arguments as regards the potential compatibility of the measure.

(114)

Therefore, following a preliminary assessment, ESA has doubts at this stage as to whether Measure 1 is compatible with the EEA Agreement. Consequently, ESA invites the Icelandic authorities to provide arguments and evidence to demonstrate that Measure 1 could be considered compatible under the EEA Agreement.

7.3. Compatibility of Measure 2

7.3.1. Introduction

(115)

The Icelandic authorities have invoked Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement as the basis for the assessment of the compatibility of Measure 2.

(116)

On this point, ESA notes that the compatibility of aid for the roll-out of broadband networks, for the purposes of securing coverage, access or connectivity, is normally assessed under the 2014 Broadband Guidelines. On 8 February 2023, ESA adopted new Broadband Guidelines (“the 2023 Broadband Guidelines”) (47).

(117)

ESA will follow the principles and guidelines set out in the 2023 Broadband Guidelines for the compatibility assessment of all notified aid to broadband networks in respect of which it is called upon to take a decision after 8 February 2023 when the 2023 Broadband Guidelines entered into force. Unlawful aid to broadband networks will be assessed in accordance with the rules applicable on the date on which the aid was awarded (48).

(118)

The 2023 Broadband Guidelines were not in effect at the time when Measure 2 was enacted, and therefore cannot serve as a basis for the compatibility assessment of the measure. Therefore, ESA will apply the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, should Measure 2 be considered to fall within their scope. However, the 2023 Broadband Guidelines are based on existing case-law and decision-making practice of the European Commission. Therefore, the 2023 Broadband Guidelines could still be relevant, should Measure 2 fall under the scope of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, provided they do not place stricter conditions on the beneficiary.

(119)

In general, the 2014 Broadband Guidelines’ primary objective is to ensure widespread availability of broadband services to end users or access to higher speed internet. The 2014 Broadband Guidelines state that “[t]hese guidelines summarise the principles of [ESA’s] policy in applying the State aid rules […] to measures that support the deployment of broadband networks in general (Section 2). They explain the application of these principles in the assessment of aid measures for the rapid roll-out of basic broadband and very high speed, next generation access (NGA) networks (in Section 3). [ESA] will apply the guidelines in the assessment of State aid for broadband” (49). This objective has not changed with the adoption of the 2023 Broadband Guidelines, which state that “[t]hese Guidelines provide guidance on how ESA will assess […] the compatibility of State aid for the deployment and take-up of fixed and mobile broadband networks and services” (50).

(120)

Therefore, the 2014 Broadband Guidelines apply to aid measures that target situations where the market does not provide sufficient broadband coverage or where access conditions are not adequate (51). Conversely, the 2014 Broadband Guidelines do not mention international connectivity, security, international data transfer, or subsea cables, and do not specifically lay down compatibility conditions for measures targeting security issues raised by the lack of geographical diversity and robustness of international connectivity services. Therefore, a measure like the one under assessment, where the objective is increased redundancy, security, and robustness of international connectivity services already available to end customers at high speeds, seems to differ from the general type of measure covered by the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, namely measures concerning the expansion or introduction of broadband networks and services.

(121)

ESA notes that the European Commission, in its Baltic Cable Decision (52), applied the 2014 Broadband Guidelines in its assessment. However, ESA also notes that the measure under assessment in that decision differed significantly from Measure 2. Specifically, it concerned capacity concerns caused by the expected dramatic increase in traffic that could not be supported by the existing infrastructure. Therefore, in addition to security benefits comparable to the ones present in the case at hand, the Baltic Sea Cable targeted (longterm) broadband availability specifically (53). Conversely, Measure 2 does not specifically concern broadband networks or availability.

(122)

However, in its judgment in Case E-4/21, when assessing ESA’s conclusion that Measure 2 fell outside the scope of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, the EFTA Court stated that the conclusion: “[…] is not supported by a sufficient analysis of the scope of application of the Broadband Guidelines. […] Although the contested decision states that ‘[t]he Broadband Guidelines’ primary objective is ensuring widespread availability of broadband services to end users or access to higher speed Idirlíon: ’ and ‘[t]he particularities of the measure and investment at hand demonstrate that the Guidelines target different types of measures than the one under assessment’, it fails to set out what impact these statements should have on the scope of application of the Broadband Guidelines. Accordingly, […] ESA encountered serious difficulties in its preliminary examination” (54). The Court then further noted “that irrespective of whether the notified measure in the present case was outside of the scope of the Broadband Guidelines, those guidelines still may provide useful guidance on considerations that are relevant to the assessment of compatibility in general” (55).

(123)

Consequently, ESA cannot conclude at this stage to what extent the 2014 Broadband Guidelines apply to the compatibility assessment of Measure 2, and therefore invites the Icelandic authorities to provide further arguments in this regard.

(124)

In the event that the Broadband Guidelines do not apply to the measure at hand, Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement provides that ESA may declare compatible “aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest”. Therefore, in order to declare the aid compatible, first, the aid must be intended to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas and, second, the aid must not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.

(125)

7.3.2. Facilitation of development of certain economic activities or areas

7.3.2.1. Economic activities or areas supported

(126)

Under Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, in order to be considered compatible, a measure must contribute to the development of certain economic activities or areas.

(127)

The primary objective of the measure is to enhance security and reduce the vulnerability of international connectivity to and from Iceland by building a third submarine cable from Iceland to Europe. The secondary objective is to shorten the digital distance between Iceland and Europe allowing Icelandic people and businesses to make better use of international digital services available in Europe.

(128)

ESA generally considers the construction of a telecommunication infrastructure with a view to its future commercial exploitation to constitute an economic activity (56). Furthermore, the telecommunications market in general constitutes an economic activity. The measure facilitates development in the market for international data transfer services specifically and the markets for electronic communications services in general.

(129)

In view of the above, ESA preliminarily concludes that the measure constitutes aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities, as required by Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.

7.3.2.2. Incentive effect

(130)

State aid is only compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement if it has an incentive effect and so effectively facilitates the development of certain economic activities. To establish whether the measure has an incentive effect, it must be demonstrated that it changes the behaviour of the undertaking concerned in such a way that it engages in an activity which it would not carry out without the aid or which it would carry out in a restricted or different manner.

(131)

In Section 6.2.2 of ESA’s Decision No 023/21/COL, ESA stated that Measure 2 had an incentive effect. ESA stated that: 1) Farice had historically proven to be unprofitable; 2) the operation of submarine cables in the region was generally unprofitable; 3) the investment in the IRIS cable was unlikely to achieve a profit; 4) the main objective of the cable was to provide enhanced security, which was an externality that did not heavily factor into investment decisions;) and 5) few stakeholders had signalled interest in operating submarine cables without State support in the past.

(132)

In light of this, ESA is generally inclined to conclude that Measure 2 had an incentive effect, as it incentivised Farice to make an investment it would not have entered into otherwise. However, the Icelandic authorities are invited to provide further information and reasoning on the incentive effect of the measure.

7.3.2.3. Compliance with relevant EEA law

(133)

The Icelandic authorities consider that the selection of Farice, as owner and operator of the IRIS cable, as well as the selection of cable manufacturer and installer, is exempt from the procurement rules, with reference to Article 10 of the Procurement Act (see also Article 8 of the Procurement Directive).

(134)

Specifically, Article 8 of the Procurement Directive states: “This Directive shall not apply to public contracts and design contests for the principal purpose of permitting the contracting authorities to provide or exploit public communications networks or to provide to the public one or more electronic communications services. For the purposes of this Article, ‘public communications network’ and ‘electronic communications service’ shall have the same meaning as in Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council”. Furthermore, ESA notes that in accordance with Article 2(m) of Directive 2002/12/EC, “provision of an electronic communications network” means the establishment, operation, control or making available such network.

(135)

The primary objective of the measure in question is to increase security of international connectivity in Iceland by building a third submarine cable, which in turn will provide the public with more electronic communication services. Therefore, the investment in the submarine cable seems to permit Farice to “provide or exploit public communications networks”, as defined in Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/21/EC. However, ESA cannot conclusively conclude at this stage whether all conditions for the application of the exemption are fulfilled.

(136)

Moreover, according to paragraph 74(c) of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, “[w]henever the granting authorities select a third party operator to deploy and operate the subsidised infrastructure, the selection process shall be conducted in line with the spirit and the principles of the Public Procurement Directives. It ensures that there is transparency for all investors wishing to bid for the implementation and/or management of the subsidised project. Equal and non-discriminatory treatment of all bidders and objective evaluation criteria are indispensable conditions”.

(137)

However, despite this provision, footnote 91 to paragraph 74(c) states: “[t]he situation is different when the public authority decides to deploy and manage the network directly (or through a fully owned entity) […] In such cases, [..] (i) the publicly owned network operators shall limit their activity on the pre-defined target areas and shall not expand to other commercially attractive regions; (ii) the public authority shall limit its activity to maintain the passive infrastructure and to grant access to it, but shall not engage in competition on the retail levels with commercial operators and (iii) to have an accounting separation between the funds used for the operation of the networks and the other funds at the disposal of the public authority”.

(138)

Therefore, the applicability of procurement rules in the context of an assessment under the 2014 Broadband Guidelines seems to depend on whether or not the the conditions, listed in footnote 91, are fulfilled. The Icelandic authorities have not provided sufficient information in this regard.

(139)

Consequently, ESA has doubts as to whether or not Measure 2 falls under the exemption from procurement rules described above, and as to whether the provisions of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines have effect in this regard. Therefore, ESA invites the Icelandic authorities to provide further information and rationale in this regard.

7.3.3. Whether the aid adversely affects trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest

7.3.3.1. Introduction

(140)

ESA has not only identified positive effects of the planned aid for the development of the abovementioned economic activities and economic areas, but also possible negative effects that it may have in terms of distortions of competition and adverse effects on trade. These positive and negative effects must then be weighed up.

7.3.3.2. Markets affected by the aid

(141)

The measure mainly has an effect on the wholesale market for international connectivity and the telecommunication market, both national and international. Additionally, the measure may have an effect on the DC market.

7.3.4. Positive effects of the aid

(142)

Measure 2 contributes to the development of a submarine cable between Iceland and Europe, thereby enhancing both redundancy and the security of the submarine cable network that Iceland relies on to participate in the global economy. This is in line with the Icelandic Government’s Telecommunications Policy, whose objective is, inter alia, to promote accessible and effective communications and to guarantee the security of telecommunications infrastructures.

(143)

To achieve those objectives, the Icelandic authorities have emphasised that three active submarine telecommunications cables will connect Iceland with Europe from different landing sites. As a geographically remote country, effective international connections are a prerequisite for the development of Iceland as a modern technologically based society. A serious disruption in international connectivity would cause major damage to the Icelandic economy and society as a whole.

(144)

According to the Icelandic authorities, the main vulnerabilities of the current international connections relate to human error, malfunctions, accidents, natural disasters and other unforeseen events. The Icelandic authorities have provided ESA with a detailed description of the various and multiple disruptions that have happened in the past and disrupted the functionality of the two existing submarine cables (57). ESA considers these vulnerabilities both realistic and probable.

(145)

Furthermore, the absolute lengths of the submarine cables from Iceland to Europe increase the probability of incidents compared to shorter cables going from Scandinavia and the UK to mainland Europe. Moreover, other countries in the EEA are connected to major international network connection points via diversified networks of multiple land and/or submarine cables while Iceland is wholly dependent on only two submarine cables.

(146)

By implementing the measure and adding a third submarine cable to the network, the Icelandic authorities expect the security of international connectivity increases circa tenfold. In particular, a third submarine cable will: (i) increase the projected uptime to 99,9993 %, (ii) reduce the probability of a total outage in a 10-year period to 0,2–1,5 %, and (iii) diversify the land routes in Iceland, decreasing risks associated with a single route failure (58).

(147)

In addition to enhanced security, the Icelandic authorities contend that the addition of a third submarine cable will also improve the competitiveness of Iceland as whole, as the Icelandic digital market will become “closer” to major network hubs in Europe. Data latency in communications between Iceland and Europe will be reduced as a result of shorted cable length and simpler network structure than is available through the current system connecting Reykjavík with Europe. ESA considers this factor positive, as it contributes to the development of the Icelandic economy as a whole.

7.3.4.1. Limited negative effects of the aid

7.3.4.1.1. Introduction

(148)

Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement requires an assessment of any negative effects on competition and on trade. The aid must not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.

7.3.4.1.2. Necessity of the aid

(149)

To assess whether State aid is effective to achieve its objective, it is necessary to first identify the problem that needs to be addressed. A State aid measure is necessary if it is targeted towards situations where aid can bring about a material improvement that the market cannot deliver itself, for example by remedying a well-defined market failure.

(150)

A market failure exists if markets, left to their own devices, without intervention fail to deliver an efficient outcome for society. This may arise, for instance, when certain investments are not being undertaken even though the economic benefit for society exceeds the cost (59).

(151)

The Icelandic authorities have explained that Farice would not have undertaken the investment in the IRIS cable in the absence of aid, as it cannot support such an investment with its own funds. This, inter alia, is an indication of the market failure associated with providing international connectivity services in Iceland.

(152)

However, the fact that a specific company may not be capable of undertaking a project without aid does not mean that there is a market failure. For instance, the decision of a company not to invest in a project with low profitability or in a region with limited market demand and/or poor cost competitiveness may not be an indication of a market failure, but rather of a market that functions well (60).

(153)

Concerning the ability of the market to deliver an efficient outcome for society, the Icelandic authorities have pointed to the fact that Iceland was, prior to the IRIS cable project, only connected to Europe through two submarine cables. Furthermore, over the past decade, few stakeholders signalled interest in investing in international data connectivity services between Iceland and Europe or America. These projects did not materialise primarily due to problems with constructing a sound business case for such an investment. Furthermore, these planned and aborted projects by market actors would have been dependent on financial participation by the State (see paragraph (54)).

(154)

However, while it is a fact that no privately funded subsea cables from Iceland have been built in the last 10 years, it is also clear that Sýn approached the Icelandic State with plans to build a subsea cable. Negotiations and discussions between the State and Sýn continued over two years, but were then terminated. Therefore, while it is unclear to ESA whether Sýn’s offer was comparable to the IRIS cable project, or if it indicates an attempt to enter the market for international data connectivity services, ESA cannot exclude the possibility that the market could have delivered the outcome sought by Measure 2.

(155)

Consequently, ESA must preliminarily conclude that it has doubts as to the necessity of Measure 2. The Icelandic authorities are invited to provide further arguments and information relating to this point.

7.3.4.1.3. Appropriateness of the aid

(156)

EFTA States can make different choices with regard to policy instruments, and State aid control does not impose a single way to intervene in the economy. However, State aid under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement can only be justified by the appropriateness of a particular instrument to contribute to the development of the targeted economic activities or areas.

(157)

ESA normally considers a measure appropriate where the EFTA State can demonstrate that alternative policy options would not be equally suitable, and that alternative, less distortive, aid instruments would not deliver equally efficient outcomes.

(158)

Due to the general unprofitability of submarine cable infrastructure investments and projects from Iceland to Europe, ESA is inclined to conclude that an alternative policy instrument, such as regulations, would neither trigger investment in the IRIS cable project, nor other similar investment projects. Further, ESA is equally inclined to conclude that a loan or guarantee would not be a more appropriate aid instrument (61).

(159)

Therefore, ESA preliminarily concludes that State aid in the form of a capital increase is the appropriate instrument to facilitate the development of the economic activities that the measure concerns. However, the Icelandic authorities are invited to elaborate on this point.

7.3.4.1.4. Proportionality of the aid

(160)

State aid is proportionate if the aid amount per beneficiary is limited to the minimum needed to incentivise the additional investment or activity in the area concerned.

(161)

Measure 2 constitutes a capital increase in Farice. The board of directors of Farice were authorised to increase the capital in intervals during the construction period of the new cable. The financing needs of the recipient were assessed at each interval and only established costs were granted through the capital increase. The granting authority reviews any expenses and controls overcompensation retroactively. This aid granting method and claw-back mechanism contributes to the proportionality of the aid. Moreover, when seeking subcontracting offers, Farice engaged in a competitive selection procedure whereby it selected a contractor who will manufacture and lay the IRIS cable. The selection procedure resulted in Farice opting to contract with the lowest bidder.

(162)

However, according to paragraph 74 of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, multiple conditions must be fulfilled in order to demonstrate the proportionality of a measure. Failure to meet any of those conditions would in most cases require a detailed assessment (62). These conditions include mapping an analysis of coverage, public consultation, and a competitive selection process.

(163)

ESA is not aware of any mapping analysis or public consultation performed by the Icelandic authorities prior to the implementation of Measure 2. Moreover, as Iceland selected an “in house entity”, namely Farice, to own and operate the infrastructure, it is clear that no competitive selection process was followed in relation to Measure 2. However, ESA notes that there is no need for a competitive selection process if the State chooses to manage a network directly (or through a wholly owned entity).

(164)

Nevertheless, where the aid is granted without a competitive selection procedure, to a public authority that deploys and manages a broadband network at wholesale level directly, or through an in-house entity, the State must justify its choice of network and technological solution.

(165)

Moreover, according to paragraph 74(d) of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, granting authorities should generally select the most economically advantageous offer. However, this only applies within the context of a competitive tender, and not when the State selects a wholly owned entity to own and operate the network.

(166)

As described in Section 3.1, the Icelandic authorities were approached by Sýn with an offer to build the third submarine cable, which following an examination by an independent expert, was considered to be cost effective than Farice’s offer. The Icelandic authorities have argued that the independent report was based on unconfirmed prices, and when asked to confirm prices, Sýn was unable to do so. Discussions between the Icelandic State and Sýn were terminated as a result. Sýn has argued that it was not given any time or opportunity to renew offers and provide confirmation on prices (63).

(167)

On this point, the EFTA Court stated that: “ESA has not touched upon this issue at all or disputed that it was aware of this information, as alleged by Sýn. ESA has merely reiterated that Sýn’s proposal relied on ‘unverified figures’ without explaining why, if it considered that the figures were unverified, it did not seek to verify them by obtaining further information from Sýn, which had already submitted a complaint to ESA” (64). The EFTA Court then concluded that “it must be held that Sýn has established that ESA was aware of documents that called into question the information at its disposal and on which it relied in the contested decision, without going beyond a mere examination of the information submitted by the Icelandic authorities. By not obtaining further information on whether Sýn was actually able to confirm its prices, or whether it had been given that opportunity, ESA failed to satisfy its obligation to conduct a diligent and impartial examination of the notified measure so that it had at its disposal the most complete and reliable information” (65).

(168)

Therefore, while the Icelandic authorities might not have been required to conduct a competitive tender, nor select the most economically advantageous offer, ESA must preliminarily conclude that the existence of an allegedly more economically viable offer from Sýn puts into doubt the proportionality of Measure 2, as the Icelandic authorities have not sufficiently explained the price differences between Sýn’s offer, and the eventual cost of the IRIS cable project.

(169)

Consequently, as ESA has doubts as regards the proportionality of Measure 2 and invites the Icelandic authorities to further elaborate on the proportionality of the measure, and, in particular, to provide arguments and information explaining the aid amount in comparison to Sýn’s allegedly more economical offer.

7.3.4.1.5. Limited negative effect on intra-EEA trade

(170)

As ESA preliminary considers Measure 2 to constitute State aid, the measure has an effect on intra-EEA trade. However, in order to be compatible, a measure should limit those effects.

(171)

As stated previously, the primary objective of the measure is to enhance the security of international connections in Iceland, and while a third submarine cable will increase capacity, ESA notes that the capacity of the current network is not fully utilised; the new infrastructure is principally expected to complement the other connections currently in operation. Therefore, the addition of a third cable does not materially alter the structure of the market for international connectivity, but rather enhances the security of the infrastructure already present.

(172)

Moreover, even though a third cable will allow Iceland to be better connected to Europe, it will not change the fact that Iceland remains an island approximately 1 200 km from the nearest European country and 2 000 km from the European continent. The improved communication to Iceland will not bridge the natural data latency gap that exists between communication on the European continent compared with communication from the continent to Iceland. Therefore, ESA finds it hard to see how the IRIS cable will have a material impact on the competitiveness of other EEA markets compared to Iceland. Therefore, the third cable, in and of itself, should not materially alter the dynamics of intra EEA-trade on the relevant market.

(173)

ESA notes that there are no other companies, established in the EEA, that currently operate, or have shown concrete plans to operate without State support, a submarine cable similar to the IRIS cable. Therefore, market participants have not to date demonstrated any concrete plans to invest in a submarine cable between Iceland and Europe prior to the implementation of the measure.

(174)

However, as mentioned in paragraph (54), one of the factors that lead to reduced investment in subsea cables from Iceland to Europe is the need to secure redundancy. An undertaking wishing to establish its own subsea cable network needs to build two cables, or secure redundancy using an existing cable. Since Farice is the only operator of subsea cables from Iceland to Europe, it is most likely that any possible new entrant would opt to secure redundancy through one of Farice’s exiting cables, in lieu of building two cables at once. ESA does not have information regarding whether Farice offers redundancy services. However, if Farice does not provide such services, it could call into question the limited negative effects of the measure on competition in general due to potential entry barriers.

(175)

Moreover, paragraph 74 of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines lists a number of conditions aimed at limiting distortion of competition and trade, including the need for detailed mapping and public consultation. Failure to comply with any of the conditions is likely to trigger the need for a detailed analysis by ESA. Therefore, regardless of the eventual scope of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, the apparent omission of the Icelandic authorities to comply with at least some of the conditions listed in paragraph 74 of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines when implementing Measure 2 leads ESA to doubt the overall limitation of negative effects on competition and trade.

7.3.4.1.6. Conclusion on limited negative effects

(176)

With reference to the foregoing, ESA has doubts that the effects of the measure on intra EEA-trade are sufficiently limited to a minimum. Therefore, ESA invites the Icelandic authorities to provide further arguments and information in this regard.

7.3.4.2. Balancing positive and negative effects of the aid

(177)

For the aid to be compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, the limited negative effects of the aid measure in terms of distortion of competition and adverse impact on trade between Contracting Parties must be outweighed by positive effects, in terms of contribution to the facilitation of the development of economic activities or areas. It must be verified that the aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.

(178)

As follows from the above, ESA is preliminarily inclined to conclude that Measure 2 has directly facilitated the economic activities of Farice and that is has had many positive effects.

(179)

However, in respect of the negative effects, ESA doubts whether the negative effects of Measure 2 on competition and trade are sufficiently limited. Specifically, ESA doubts whether the market failure addressed by the measure is clearly present, and whether the aid was on the whole proportional. Moreover, the effects of the measure on the markets it affects needs to be further examined.

(180)

At this stage, ESA therefore doubts that the positive effects of the measure outweigh its possible distortion of competition and adverse impact on trade.

8. Conclusion

(181)

As set out above, ESA has doubts as to whether Measure 1 constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Further, if the measure is found to involve aid, ESA also has doubts as to whether the measure would be compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

(182)

Furthermore, ESA has doubts as to whether the Measure 2 is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

(183)

Consequently, and in accordance Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3, ESA hereby opens the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3. The decision to open a formal investigation procedure is without prejudice to the final decision of ESA, which may conclude that Measures 1 and 2 do not constitute State aid or are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

(184)

ESA, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3, invites the Icelandic authorities to submit their comments by 14 April 2023, and to provide all documents, information and data needed for the assessment of the measures in light of the State aid rules.

(185)

The Icelandic authorities are requested to immediately forward a copy of this decision to the aid recipient.

(186)

The Icelandic authorities have confirmed that this opening decision does not contain any business secrets or other confidential information that should not be published.

(187)

Finally, ESA will inform interested parties by publishing a meaningful summary in the Official Journal of the European Union and the EEA Supplement thereto. All interested parties will be invited to submit their comments within one month of the date of such publication. The comments will be communicated to the Icelandic authorities.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority,

Arne RØKSUND

President

Responsible College Member

Stefan BARRIGA

College Member

Árni Páll ÁRNASON

College Member

Melpo-Menie JOSÉPHIDÈS

Countersigning as Director,

Legal and Executive Affairs

(1) Breithiúnas ó Chúirt Bhreithiúnais Stáit CSTE i gCás E-4/21 Sýn hf. v Údarás Faireacháin CSTE [gan tuairisc a bheith tugtha ina leith go fóill].

(2) Document No 1176447.

(3) Document No 1182556.

(4) “SGEI” stands for “Services of General Economic Interest”.

(5) Document No 1182715.

(6) Document No 1189996.

(7) Document No 1192410.

(8) Document No 1256678.

(9) Document No 1276074.

(10) Judgment of the EFTA Court in Case E-4/21 Sýn hf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority (not yet reported).

(11) Document No 1285878.

(12) Document No 1313840 and attachments.

(13) Document No 1326167.

(14) Commission Decision 2012/21/EU on the application of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union to State aid in the form of public service compensation to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (OJ L 7, 11.1.2012, p. 3, and EEA Supplement No 43, 2.8.2012, p. 56).

(15) Document No 664512.

(16) EGS is an international group of companies with offices in Europe, the Americas, Asia and Australia. EGS provides global specialist multi-disciplinary marine survey support, and delivers solutions to the Telecommunications, Renewables, Oil and Gas, Charting and Marine Infrastructure market sectors. See also http://www.egssurvey.com/.

(17) For a more detailed description of Measure 2, see Section 3 of ESA’s Decision No 023/21/COL.

(18) In 2013–2018, Farice received public service compensation from the Fund for offering electronic communications connectivity between Iceland and Europe through FARICE-1 and DANICE. The last payment on this basis was made on 4 October 2018.

(19) The new IRIS cable will be based on an open cable architecture which means that customers can be given an access to the infrastructure by using their own terminal equipment. Access to infrastructure can be granted by own fibre pair or fractional fibre pair (spectrum). Furthermore, the technology to use the submarine cable is standardised and based on Ethernet, which is the technology commonly used. A more advanced interface in the form of OTU2, OTU3 and OTU4 is also offered.

(20) This refers to different surveys than those covered by Measure 1.

(21) See Farice press release dated 11 November 2022.

(22) Case No 86451.

(23) Judgment of 24 July 2003, Altmark, C-280/00, ECLI:EU:C:2003:415, paragraphs 87-93.

(24) Commission Decision 2012/21/EU on the application of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union to State aid in the form of public service compensation to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (OJ L 7, 11.1.2012, p. 3, and EEA Supplement No 43, 2.8.2012, p. 56).

(25) Framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (OJ L 161, 13.6.2013, p. 12 and EEA Supplement No 34, 13.6.2013, p. 1).

(26) See the Judgment of the EFTA Court in Case E-4/21 Sýn hf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority, paragraph 67.

(27) Cases 86220 and 86598.

(28) Case 86451.

(29) Document No 1276074, Section 6.1.

(30) ESA’s Guidelines on the application of the State aid rules in relation to rapid deployment of broadband networks (OJ L 135, 8.5.2014, p. 49 and EEA Supplement No 27, 8.5.2014, p. 1).

(31) The Icelandic authorities mention specifically earlier interest shown by Emerald and Nordic Networks in 2010-2016, and proposals from Sýn, both independently and in collaboration with Celtic Norse AS, in 2018-2020. These proposals were all dependant on some kind of financial participation by the Icelandic State. For further information see Section 3.2.4 in ESA’s Decision No 023/21/COL.

(32) The Act on Public Procurement No 120/2016.

(33) Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 65, and EEA Supplement No 73, 16.11.2017, p. 53).

(34) Judgment of 22 September 2020 in Austria v Commission (Hinkley Point C), C-594/18 P, ECLI:EU:C:2020:742, paragraphs 18–20.

(35) https://www.stjornarradid.is/verkefni/samgongur-og-fjarskipti/fjarskiptasjodur/.

(36) ESA’s Guidelines on the notion of State aid as referred to in Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement (“NoA”) (OJ L 342, 21.12.2017, p. 35 and EEA Supplement No 82, 21.12.2017, p. 1), paragraph 66.

(37) See for instance Judgment of 5 June 2012, Commission v EDF, C-124/10 P, ECLI:EU:C:2012:318, paragraph 90; Judgment of 15 March 1994, Banco Exterior de España, C-387/92, ECLI:EU:C:1994:100, paragraph 14; and Judgment of 19 May 1999, Italy v Commission, C-6/97, ECLI:EU:C:1999:251, paragraph 16.

(38) NoA, Section 4.2.1.

(39) NoA, paragraph 76.

(40) NoA, paragraph 79.

(41) Document No 1313844.

(42) Judgment of the EFTA Court in Case E-6/98 Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority [1999] Ct. Rep. 76, paragraph 59, where it is stated that “[w]hen State financial aid strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Community trade the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid”.

(43) NoA, paragraph 187.

(44) The EFTA Court, in its judgment in Case E-4/21, did not suggest anything to the contrary.

(45) See Article 1(e) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (“Protocol 3”).

(46) Judgment of 22 September 2020, Austria v Commission (Hinkley Point C), C-594/18 P, ECLI:EU:C:2020:742, paragraphs 18–20.

(47) See ESA Decision No 004/23/COL amending the substantive rules in the field of State aid by introducing new Guidelines on State aid for broadband networks (not yet reported).

(48) Ibid, Article 1(2).

(49) See the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, paragraph 4.

(50) See the 2023 Broadband Guidelines, paragraph 14.

(51) See the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, paragraphs 34–35. See also the pre-requisites for defining a service as an SGEI in paragraph 16.

(52) Commission Decision SA.36918 (Finland), Baltic Sea Backbone Cable (OJ C 422, 8.12.2017, p.1).

(53) Ibid, paragraph 91: “Thus, the measure facilitates the development of certain economic activities, i.e the provision of electronic communications services and networks, including the provision of international connectivity, and indirectly the provision of broadband services”. (emphasis added).

(54) Judgment of the EFTA Court in Case E-4/21 Sýn hf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority, paragraph 72.

(55) Ibid, paragraph 73.

(56) NoA, paragraphs 202 and 216, and the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, paragraph 7.

(57) See Section 3.2.3 of ESA’s Decision No 023/21/COL for details.

(58) See ESA’s Decision No 023/21/COL, paragraph 22.

(59) See 2014 Broadband Guidelines, paragraph 33.

(60) See 2014 Broadband Guidelines, footnote 45.

(61) See ESA Decision No 023/21/COL, Section 6.3.4.3.

(62) Similar conditions can also be found in the 2023 Broadband Guidelines, Section 5.2.4.

(63) Judgment of the EFTA Court in Case E-4/21 Sýn hf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority, paragraph 64.

(64) Ibid, paragraph 66.

(65) Ibid, paragraph 68.

13.4.2023

Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh

C 129/47

Foilsiú iarratais ar fhormheas leasaithe, nach mionleasú é, ar shonraíocht táirge de bhun Airteagal 50(2)(a) de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1151/2012 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle maidir le scéimeanna cáilíochta do tháirgí talmhaíochta agus do bhia-earraí

(2023/C 129/05)

Leis an bhfoilsiú seo, tugtar an ceart chun cur i gcoinne chur i bhfeidhm an leasaithe de bhun Airteagal 51 de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1151/2012 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle (1), laistigh de 3 mhí ó dháta an fhoilsithe seo.

IARRATAS AR FHORMHEAS A DHÉANAMH AR LEASÚ NACH MIONLEASÚ É AR SHONRAÍOCHT TÁIRGE SONRÚCHÁIN TIONSCNAIMH FAOI CHOSAINT NÓ TÁISC GHEOGRAFAIGH FAOI CHOSAINT

Iarratas ar fhormheas a dhéanamh ar leasú i gcomhréir leis an gcéad fhomhír d’Airteagal 53(2) de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1151/2012

“ALCACHOFA DE TUDELA”

Uimh. AE: PGI-ES-0139-AM01 — 9.9.2021

STFC ( ) TGFC (X)

1. Grúpa iarratasóra agus leas dlisteanach

Consejo Regulador de la Indicación Geográfica Protegida “Alcachofa de Tudela” [Bord Rialála Thásc Geografach faoi Chosaint “Alcachofa de Tudela”]

Avda. Serapio Huici, 22 Edificio Peritos

31610 Villava (Navarre)

AN SPÁINN

Teil. +34 948013045

Seoladh ríomhphoist: ajuanena@intiasa.es

Déanann an grúpa iarratasóra ionadaíocht do leasanna comhchoiteanna tháirgeoirí “Alcachofa de Tudela” agus tá leas dlisteanach aige san iarratas seo ar an tsonraíocht táirge le haghaidh Tásc Geografach Faoi Chosaint “Alcachofa de Tudela” a leasú. Is é sin an grúpa a rinne iarratas ar an stádas cosanta le haghaidh an táirge sin i dtosach báire freisin.

Is comhlachas é Bord Rialála TGFC “Alcachofa de Tudela” atá comhdhéanta de tháirgeoirí a oibríonn le “Alcachofa de Tudela”. Le haidhmeanna an Bhoird, cuimsítear luach an táirge a fheabhsú agus feabhas a chur ar fheidhmíocht scéim TGFC, i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 45 de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1151/2012.

Faoin reachtaíocht náisiúnta is infheidhme, cuirtear cáilíocht “Alcachofa de Tudela” a chur chun cinn agus maoirseacht agus cosaint a dhéanamh ar cháil an táirge ar iontaoibh an Bhoird. Léirítear é sin ina rialacha nós imeachta, a ráthaíodh leis an Ordú ón 30 Bealtaine 2001 de chuid na hAireachta Talmhaíochta, Iascaigh agus Bia.

2. Ballstát nó tríú tír

An Spáinn

3. Ceannteideal sa tsonraíocht táirge a ndéanann an leasú (na leasuithe) difear dó

☐	Ainm an táirge

☒	Tuairisc ar an táirge

☒	Limistéar geografach

☒	Cruthúnas ar thionscnamh

☒	An modh táirgthe

☒

Nasc

☒

Lipéadú

☒	Eile: I. Reachtaíocht náisiúnta is infheidhme; G. Comhlacht rialúcháin

4. Cineál an leasaithe nó na leasuithe

☒	Leasú ar shonraíocht táirge STFC nó TGFC cláraithe nach bhfuil le cáiliú mar mhionleasú i gcomhréir leis an tríú fomhír d’Airteagal 53(2) de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1151/2012.

☐	Leasú ar shonraíocht táirge STFC nó TGFC cláraithe nár foilsíodh Doiciméad Aonair (ná doiciméad coibhéiseach) ina leith nach bhfuil le cáiliú mar mhionleasú i gcomhréir leis an tríú fomhír d’Airteagal 53(2) de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1151/2012

5. Leasú nó leasuithe

5.1. Leasuithe a dhéanann difear do phríomheilimintí

5.1.A.1.

Cuireadh an téacs seo a leanas le mír 11 den roinn “Tuairisc ar an táirge” den tsonraíocht táirge, tar éis na tuairisce ar mhargú na mbliosán gan ghais: “c) Bliosáin atá réidh le húsáid sa chistin: Ní mór na bliosáin a scamhadh agus a phacáistiú ar bhealach lena gcoimeádfar a gcuma agus a n-úire go dtí go n-íosfar iad.”

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Tá an rogha chun bliosáin gan ghais a mhargú i bhformáid scafa curtha isteach. Ach an fhormáid sin a mhargú, cuirtear é ar a gcumas do thomhaltóirí bliosán úr atá réidh lena chócaráil a cheannach agus d’fhéadfadh sé a bheith ina bhealach éifeachtach chun teagmháil a dhéanamh le grúpa tomhaltóirí nach mbíonn an t-am ná an cumas acu bliosáin a scamhadh.

Sonraítear nach mór na bliosáin a scamhadh agus a phacáistiú ar bhealach lena gcoimeádfar a gcuma agus a n-úire go dtí go n-íosfar iad. Faoi láthair, déantar iad a fholúsphacáil faoi phacáistíocht phlaisteach. Mar sin féin, níl aon mhian ann go gcuirfí as an áireamh go bhféadfaí cineálacha eile pacáistíochta neamhphlaistí atá á bhforbairt a úsáid.

Comhlíonann na bliosáin seo na ceanglais chéanna agus a chomhlíonann bliosáin neamhscafa a mhargaítear mar tháirgí úra; bíonn siad sin leath bealaí idir iad seo agus na bliosáin leasaithe a chumhdaítear le TGFC “Alcachofa de Tudela” freisin.

An téacs “féadfar iad a chur i láthair in dhá fhormáid” athraíodh é sin go “féadfar iad a chur i láthair i dtrí fhormáid” chun an tríú formáid sin a chuimsiú.

5.2. Leasuithe nach ndéanann difear do phríomheilimintí

5.2.A Leasuithe nach ndéanann difear do phríomheilimintí de roinn B, “Tuairisc ar an táirge”, den tsonraíocht táirge

5.2.A.1

An focal “bíonn ag” athraíodh é sin go “bíonn ag de ghnáth” sa cheathrú mír den tuairisc ar an táirge sa tsonraíocht táirge.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Rinneadh leasú sin chun a shoiléiriú go soláthraítear tuairisc ghinearálta leis an mír ar chineál Blanca de Tudela agus nach leagtar síos aon srian leis an mír maidir le méid na gceann a fhéadfar a phiocadh. Bíonn méid na gceann éagsúil i rith an tséasúir bhuainte, agus pioctar cinn níos mó nó níos lú ag brath ar éileamh an mhargaidh agus ar na dálaí aimsire. Bliosáin níos mó is fearr le margaí áirithe, ach bliosáin níos lú is fearr le margaí eile agus is iad a úsáidtear chun bliosáin a leasú.

In aon chás, ní bhíonn siad an-mhór riamh. Is saintréith den chineál nach dtáirgtear bliosáin mhóra, de réir mar a thagann an planda i mbláth – rud a fhágann nach mbíonn sé oiriúnach lena mhargú – nuair a shroicheann an bliosán an mheánmhéid.

5.2.A.2

An deichiú mír den tuairisc ar an táirge sa tsonraíocht táirge, lena dtugtar aghaidh ar chur i láthair na mbliosán a mhargaítear mar tháirgí úra, leasaíodh é chun go mbeidh an tuairisc sin níos soiléire, ach níl aon srian nua tugtha isteach.

Is é seo a leanas atá le léamh sa tuairisc ar bhliosáin lena ngais anois “a) Bliosáin gona ngais.- Féadfaidh gas de mhéid thart faoi 18 cm ar a fhad a bheith faoi na cinn, agus ar a laghad aon duilleog iomlán nó dhó. Ní mór iad a dhíol ina ndosaen.” Tá na focail “thart faoi” agus “ar a laghad” curtha isteach, agus san abairt dheireanach (“ar an mbealach traidisiúnta, mar atá, ina gcrobhaingí ”) scriosta.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Ní thugtar aon srian nua isteach leis an leasú sin. Ina áit sin, rinneadh é chun a shoiléiriú go ndíoltar an táirge in éineacht le gas agus le duilleoga de ghnáth. Cé nach n-itear iad sin, is in éineacht leo sin go traidisiúnta a mhargaítear an táirge. Díoltar “Alcachofa de Tudela” ina dhosaen go traidisiúnta, agus gas ar tomhas thart faoi 18 gceintiméadar faoi gach bliosán. Mar sin féin, ós rud é nach mbíonn fad an ghais cinntitheach ó thaobh cháilíocht an táirge de, cuireadh an focal “thart faoi” isteach chun tuilleadh saoirse a thabhairt. Braithfidh fad an ghais ar an bpointe sa séasúr a bhuaintear an táirge. Is faide na gais níos luaithe sa séasúr agus téann siad i ngiorracht de réir mar a théann an séasúr ar aghaidh, rud lena léirítear forbairt nádúrtha an phlanda.

I gcodarsnacht leis sin, bíonn sé tábhachtach na duilleoga a bheith ar an bplanda agus bliosáin á ndíol ina ndosaen. Cé nach n-itear na duilleoga de ghnáth, is faide a mhaireann bliosáin úra agus na duilleoga orthu. Bíonn sé tábhachtach dá bhrí sin a chur i dtábhacht nach mór ar a laghad aon duilleog iomlán nó dhó a bheith ar bhliosáin úra agus nach gceadaítear bliosáin gan duilleoga. Cuireadh na focail “ar a laghad” isteach chun é sin a léiriú.

Tá an abairt “ar an mbealach traidisiúnta, mar atá, ina gcrobhaingí ” scriosta toisc nach gá bliosáin a mhargú ina gcrobhaingí. Fágann bliosáin áitreabh na gcuideachtaí margaíochta cláraithe i gcoitinne faoi phacáistíocht lena bhfágtar gur féidir iad a iompar go sábháilte gan cur isteach ar a gcáilíocht. Chuirtí bliosáin ar mhargaí ina gcrobhaingí roimhe seo, ach seoltar chuig margaí ina mboscaí de ghnáth anois iad toisc gur fearr a bhíonn siad ag deireadh an turais ar an mbealach sin. Nuair a shroicheann siad an díolphointe, díoltar ina ndosaen iad, ach ní gá go ndíoltar ina gcrobhaingí iad.

5.2.A.3

An t-aonú mír dhéag den tuairisc ar an táirge sa tsonraíocht táirge, lena dtugtar aghaidh ar chur i láthair na mbliosán a mhargaítear mar tháirgí úra, leasaíodh é chun go mbeidh an tuairisc sin níos soiléire, ach níl aon srian nua tugtha isteach. An abairt “agus gan aon duilleog air” athraíodh é sin go “agus gan aon duilleog fásta air”. Scriosadh an abairt “Díoltar de réir an chileagraim iad”.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: An fhoclaíocht “teoranta do” athraíodh é sin go “is giorra ná ” chun a shoiléiriú nach mór don ghas a bheith níos giorra ná 10 cm ar a fhad.

Ba cheart a shoiléiriú, éagosúil le bliosáin gona ngais, nach mbíonn duilleoga fásta ar bhliosáin a dhíoltar san fhormáid sin. Is de réir meáchain a dhíoltar an táirge seo i gcoitinne. Ní bhíonn duilleoga fásta air. É sin ráite, is minic a bhíonn duilleoga beaga, neamhaibí, ar cuid den ghas iad, ar na bliosáin (agus is giorra ná 10 cm a bhíonn an gas). Toisc go ndíoltar na bliosáin in éineacht lena ngais, ní féidir na duilleoga sin a bhaint gan difear a dhéanamh do leasú na mbliosán. Ba cheart a shoiléiriú, cé nach féidir duilleoga atá fásta go hiomlán a bheith ar bhliosáin a mhargaítear gan ghais, nach bhfuil aon ghá ann na duilleoga beaga, neamhaibí ar cuid den ghas iad a ghearradh de na bliosáin. Cuimsíodh pictiúr de bhliosán ar a bhfuil duilleoga fásta áirithe agus duilleoga beaga, neamhfhásta áirithe. Is amhlaidh sin chun a thaispeáint nach féidir an bliosán a bhuaint, agus an t-íosfhad gais is gá lena leasú a fhágáil, gan na duilleoga neamhfhásta a bheith san áireamh.

Scriosadh an abairt “Díoltar de réir an chileagraim iad” toisc nach leagtar ceanglas síos léi. Bhí an abairt sin le feiceáil sa tsonraíocht táirge bhunaidh i ngeall ar an gcosúlacht le bliosáin a bhfuil gais agus duilleoga orthu, a mhargaítear ina ndosaen. Mar sin féin, níl aon ghá ann an abairt a choimeád toisc go margaítear bliosáin ar an mbealach sin de ghnáth.

5.2.B Leasuithe dréachtaithe ar roinn B, “Tuairisc ar an táirge”, den tsonraíocht táirge

5.2.B.1

An abairt “Is iontach an blas a bhíonn air, nuair a bhíonn an bliosán glas freisin [i.e. úr]” scriosadh í as deireadh na ceathrú míre den tuairisc ar an táirge sa tsonraíocht táirge.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Scriosadh an abairt ‘Is iontach an blas a bhíonn air, nuair a bhíonn an bliosán glas freisin. Is léir gurbh é a bhí i gceist leis an abairt go dtabharfaí le fios gurb iontach blas an táirge neamhchócaráilte, i bhfianaise gur glas a bhíonn na bliosáin de chineál Blanca de Tudela i gcónaí. B’fhearr an abairt a scriosadh toisc gurb abairt mhíthreorach atá inti agus nach leagtar síos ceanglas léi ná nach dtugtar tuairisc léi ar shaintréith shuaithinseach.

5.2.B.2

Sa tsonraíocht táirge, an cúigiú mír, dá dtagraítear do Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1466/2003, scriosadh an abairt “in Aicme I” as an seachtú mír.

Na forais leis an abairt sin a scriosadh: Scriosadh an abairt toisc gur aisghaireadh an rialachán dá dtagraítear léi agus nach leagtar síos leis an rialachán atá i bhfeidhm faoi láthair, Rialachán Tarmligthe (AE) ón gCoimisiún Rialachán (AE) 2019/428 ón 12 Iúil 2018, aicmí tráchtála le haghaidh bliosáin a mhargaítear mar tháirgí úra agus dá bhrí sin, nach tagairt atá inti maidir le haicmí tráchtála a leagan síos le haghaidh na mbliosán.

Scriosadh an abairt “in Aicme I” toisc, mar a luaitear thuas, go raibh an t-aicme bunaithe ar reachtaíocht nach bhfuil i bhfeidhm a thuilleadh.

5.2.B.3

An abairt “Bliosáin a mhargaítear mar tháirgí úra” cuireadh isteach í ag tús na séú míre den roinn “Tuairisc ar an táirge” den tsonraíocht táirge chun go mbeidh an téacs níos soiléire.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Leasaíodh an téacs de ghrá na soiléireachta toisc gur scriosadh an mhír roimhe, lenar tagraíodh do rialachán Eorpach aisghairthe. An abairt “Bliosáin a mhargaítear mar tháirgí úra” cuireadh isteach í chun a shoiléiriú go mbaineann na saintréithe ar a dtugtar tuairisc sa mhír le bliosáin a mhargaítear mar tháirgí úra.

5.2.C Leasuithe dréachtaithe ar roinn C, “Limistéar Geografach”, den tsonraíocht táirge

5.2.C.1

Scriosadh an fhaisnéis neamhábhartha ar fad as an roinn sin den tsonraíocht táirge. Níl inti anois ach liosta de na bardais lena gcomhdhéantar an limistéar geografach sainithe. Leasaíodh deireadh an téacs freisin: “ceantar talmhaíochta céanna, mar atá, V nó Ribera”, athraíodh é sin go “limistéar táirgthe”.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Scriosadh an chéad mhír, lena dtugtar tuairisc ar shuíomh Navarre agus ar na ceantair atá ann. Níl sa téacs anois ach liosta de na bardais lena gcomhdhéantar an limistéar a chumhdaítear le TGFC “Alcachofa de Tudela”; níor sainíodh an limistéar geografach leis an gcuid eile den fhaisnéis ar bhealach ar bith.

Os a choinne sin, cé nach bhfuil an limistéar geografach athraithe, níl roinnt Navarre ina gceantair thalmhaíochta ó thaobh riaracháin de mar an gcéanna a thuilleadh leis an deighilt ar a dtugtar tuairisc sa tsonraíocht táirge. Baineadh na tagairtí uile do cheantair thalmhaíochta as an téacs dá bhrí sin, rud nach bhfuil ann anois ach liosta de na bardais lena gcomhdhéantar an limistéar geografach sainithe ar fad.

Scriosadh an mhír lena dtugtar tuairisc ar an dáileachán barr sa limistéar sainithe freisin, toisc go n-athraítear an dáileachán barr ó bhliain go bliain agus nach gcuireann an fhaisnéis sin aon rud nua leis an tsonraíocht táirge.

Scriosadh deireadh na míre deireanaí chun an tagairt do cheantair thalmhaíochta a bhaint amach. Tagraítear don limistéar táirgthe ina áit sin le deireadh na míre anois. Mar a luadh roimhe seo, athraíodh roinnt an limistéir ina cheantair idir foilsiú na sonraíochta táirge agus an lá atá inniu ann.

5.2.D Leasuithe nach ndéanann difear do phríomheilimintí roinn D, ‘Cruthúnas ar thionscnamh an táirge sa limistéar, de chuid na sonraíochta táirge

5.2.D.1

Roinn D. “Cruthúnas ar thionscnamh an táirge sa limistéar”, de chuid na sonraíochta táirge, rinneadh athrú ó bhonn air: tá an téacs neamhábhartha ar fad scriosta agus díríonn an fhoclaíocht anois ar na heilimintí lena ráthaítear inrianaitheacht, tionscnamh agus saintréithe an táirge. Ní dhéanann scriosadh na nithe sin difear do phríomheilimintí.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Ní bheartaítear leis an athrú sin ach míniú níos fearr agus níos beaichte a sholáthar ar an mbealach a léirítear go bhfuil an táirge de thionscnamh an limistéir gheografaigh shainithe agus go gcomhlíonann sé na ceanglais eile a leagtar síos sa tsonraíocht táirge.

Bhí an fhoclaíocht a bhí sa roinn sin den tsonraíocht táirge roimhe cuíosach doiléir agus níor tugadh pictiúr soiléir de na seiceálacha ná de na tástálacha a dhéanann an comhlacht rialúcháin chun a áirithiú go gcomhlíontar an tsonraíocht táirge.

Soláthraítear míniú níos mionsonraithe leis an bhfoclaíocht nua a bheartaítear faoi na seiceálacha agus faoi na tástálacha iarbhír a dhéantar leis an rialú cigireachta atá ina chuid den nós imeachta deimhniúcháin, rud a chomhlíonann caighdeán UNE-EN ISO/IEC 17065:2012 agus atá creidiúnaithe ag an gComhlacht Náisiúnta Creidiúnaithe.

Soláthraíodh mionsonraí maidir leis an gcóras cigireachta freisin, atá bunaithe ar na nithe seo a leanas: cigireachtaí ar an láthair ar pháirceanna bliosán; cigireachtaí a dhéantar ag na monarchana próiseála; agus sampláil agus anailís le linn an tséasúir phróiseála. Comhlánaítear an córas sin le córais chigireachta inmheánacha na monarchana próiseála féin. Sonraítear freisin leis an téacs na cláir nach mór do na hoibreoirí a bhíonn i mbun tháirgeadh na mbliosán TGFC a bheith liostaithe iontu chun gur féidir an córas cigireachta a chur chun feidhme.

5.2.E Leasuithe nach ndéanann difear do phríomheilimintí de roinn E, “Modh táirgthe”, den tsonraíocht táirge

5.2.E.1

Níl fágtha gan athrú air ach an chéad chuid den dara mír de roinn E, “Modh táirgthe”, den tsonraíocht táirge, lena dtugtar tuairisc ar an gceanglas maidir leis an táirge a fhás mar bharr bliantúil. Scriosadh an chuid eile den mhír toisc go bhfuil sí iomarcach.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Scriosadh an téacs toisc nach leagtar aon cheanglas síos leis maidir leis an modh táirgthe: sonraítear ann go moltar an uainíocht barr go traidisiúnta agus tugtar faoi deara ann nár breathnaíodh aon fhadhb is inchurtha i leith an barr a tháirgeadh arís is arís eile nuair nach bhfeidhmítear an uainíocht barr.

5.2.E.2

An roinn “Ithreacha” de roinn E, “Modh táirgthe”, den tsonraíocht táirge bhunaidh, scriosadh í toisc nach leagtar aon cheanglas síos leis maidir leis an táirge faoi chosaint.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Scriosadh an téacs toisc nach leagtar aon cheanglas síos leis maidir leis an modh táirgthe. Ní hé an Bord Rialála a chinneann cé na hithreacha a bhíonn oiriúnach lena saothrú; is é an táirgeoir a bhíonn freagrach as dáileachtaí a roghnú ina bhfuil saintréithe ithreach lena gcuirfear é ar a chumas don bharr fás ar bhealach lenar féidir leis cinn na mbliosáin a tháirgeadh lena gcomhlíonfar na saintréithe cáilíochta a cheanglaítear le TGFC.

5.2.E.3

An roinn “Leasachán” de roinn E, “Modh táirgthe”, den tsonraíocht táirge bhunaidh, scriosadh í toisc nach leagtar aon cheanglas síos léi maidir leis an táirge faoi chosaint.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Scriosadh an téacs toisc nach leagtar aon cheanglas síos leis maidir leis an modh táirgthe. Tugtar tuairisc leis an seantéacs ar an mbealach a cuireadh leasacháin i bhfeidhm nuair a tarraingíodh an tsonraíocht táirge suas agus tagraítear leis an tuairisc sin do chaighdeáin a aisghaireadh ó shin. Ní mór dea-chleachtais talmhaíochta a leanúint leis an uainíocht barr agus le húsáid na leasachán araon agus ní mór dóibh an reachtaíocht atá i bhfeidhm an tráth sin a chomhlíonadh. Ós rud é nach saintréithe sonracha de tháirgeadh “Alcachofa de Tudela” iad agus gur ceanglais ghinearálta iad ina áit sin, ní gá iad a lua sa tsonraíocht táirge.

5.2.E.4

An roinn “Plandú” de roinn E, “Modh táirgthe”, den tsonraíocht táirge, leasaíodh í: scriosadh an téacs lena dtugtar tuairisc ar theicnící saothraithe bliosán, gan ach saintréithe cinntitheacha an táirge faoi chosaint á bhfágáil ann.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Scriosadh na míreanna lena dtugtar tuairisc ar na teicnící chun rónna a leasú agus a ullmhú lena bplandú toisc go dtagraítear do theicnící saothraithe leo – a bhfuil cuid díobh imithe i léig – agus toisc gur teicnící iad nach mbaineann go sonrach le TGFC “Alcachofa de Tudela”.

Ní dhéanann an dlús plandaithe agus an fad idir na plandaí agus na rónna difear substaintiúil do cháilíocht an bhairr, ach braitheann siad ina áit sin ar an innealra a bhíonn ar fáil don táirgeoir. Scriosadh an tuairisc dá bhrí sin.

Scriosadh an tagairt d’Institiúid Teicneolaíochta agus Bainistíochta Talmhaíochta Navarre mar an comhlacht a bhíonn freagrach as maoirseacht a dhéanamh ar roghnú na bplandaí; cuideachta phoiblí a bhí inti a thuairiscíodh do Rialtas Navarre agus nach ann di a thuilleadh. Anois, is iad na feirmeoirí a tháirgeann na corónacha fréimhe a bhíonn freagrach as roghnú an phlanda a fhágfar mar a bhfuil sé chun na corónacha fréimhe a tháirgeadh. Is minic a thugann na feirmeoirí sin tríú páirtithe neamhspleácha isteach chun a dheimhniú gur roghnaíodh an planda i gceart.

Tá tuairisc fós ann ar an séasúr plandaithe. Mar sin féin, níl aon srian curtha ar na dátaí toisc go mbraitheann siad ar an uair a bheidh planda an bhliosáin triomaithe, na corónacha fréimhe bainte amach agus dálaí na talún oiriúnach le haghaidh an phlandaithe.

5.2.E.5

Scriosadh an roinn “Cúram” de roinn E, “Modh táirgthe”, den tsonraíocht táirge, toisc nach leagtar aon cheanglas síos léi, ina háit sin, tugtar tuairisc inti ar an mbealach a shaothraítear bliosáin, agus tá codanna den roinn imithe i léig.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Scriosadh an téacs toisc nach leagtar ceanglais amach leis a bhaineann go sonrach le TGFC “Alcachofa de Tudela”; ní dhéantar sa téacs ach tuairisc a thabhairt ar an teicníc a d’úsáidtí an tráth a dréachtaíodh an tsonraíocht táirge. Sa lá atá inniu ann, fágtar roinnt mhaith dáileachtaí gan fiailí a bhaint astu. Ina áit sin, ceadaítear fás rialaithe na bhfiailí chun go soláthrófar cumhdach talún agus go gcoiscfear an galú uisce. De rogha air sin, féadfar ábhair chumhdaigh a úsáid chun fiailí a chur faoi chois agus deireadh a chur leis an ngá le luibhicíd a úsáid.

5.2.E.6

An roinn “Uisciú” de roinn E, “Modh táirgthe”, den tsonraíocht táirge, leasaíodh í: scriosadh na míreanna nach leagtar ceanglais síos leo agus nach ndéantar iontu ach tuairisc a thabhairt ar an limistéar sainithe, agus cuireadh feabhas ar an bhfoclaíocht chun í a shoiléiriú.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Cuirtear i dtábhacht leis an téacs anois go mbíonn gá leis an uisciú chun na bliosáin a shaothrú toisc gur beag báistí a bhíonn sa limistéar táirgthe.

Scriosadh an téacs lena dtugtar tuairisc ar theicnící uisciúcháin toisc gur téacs ginearálta atá ann, i bhfianaise go mbraithfidh na teicnící uisciúcháin is iomchuí ar na dálaí aimsire tráth gach céime den saothrú.

Scriosadh an téacs faoin uisciú i bpáirceanna dara bliana toisc go mbraitheann sé sin ar na dálaí aimsire tráth gach céime den saothrú freisin.

5.2.E.7

Scriosadh an roinn “Cóireáil” as roinn E, “Modh táirgthe”, den tsonraíocht táirge.

Na forais leis an roinn sin a scriosadh: Scriosadh an téacs toisc go dtagraítear leis do na cóireálacha cosanta plandaí a d’úsáidtí nuair a dréachtaíodh an tsonraíocht táirge bhunaidh, agus tá cóireálacha áirithe díobh toirmiscthe anois. Tá srianta á gcur ar chóireálacha cosanta plandaí le reachtaíocht Eorpach agus tá roinnt mhaith táirgeoirí “Alcachofa de Tudela” ag dul i muinín cóireálacha orgánacha. Is beag ciall atá leis dá bhrí sin cóireálacha cosanta plandaí a lua toisc gur féidir leo athrú le himeacht ama agus nach bhfuil aon cheanglas sonrach ann a bhaineann leo le haghaidh TGFC “Alcachofa de Tudela”.

5.2.E.8

Codanna den roinn “Buaint” de roinn E, “Modh táirgthe”, den tsonraíocht táirge, scriosadh iad toisc gur tuairiscí ginearálta a thugtar leo ar shaothrú na mbliosán. Níl fágtha ach na ceanglais a bhaineann go sonrach leis an táirge faoi chosaint.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Scriosadh an mhír lena dtagraítear d’fhorbairt bharrleibhéil chinn na mbliosán toisc gur tuairisc ghinearálta atá inti a bhfuil feidhm aici maidir leis na bliosáin uile agus nach leagtar síos aon cheanglas sonrach léi ba cheart a chuimsiú sa tsonraíocht táirge.

Scriosadh na míreanna lena dtagraítear do thréimhsí an fhómhair agus d’úsáidí beartaithe na mbliosán buainte. Cuirtear tús le buaint na mbliosán nuair a bhíonn bliosáin lánfhásta ar an bplanda; athraíonn an tréimhse a tharlaíonn sé sin go mór, ag brath ar an aimsir san fhómhar agus ar shioc an gheimhridh, ós rud é nach féidir tús a chur le buaint na mbliosán lena ndeimhniú ach amháin an tráth a bheidh deireadh leis an sioc.

Braithfidh an úsáid a bhainfear as na bliosáin bhuainte ar éileamh an mhargaidh. Tugtar tús áite do mhargadh na dtáirgí úra de ghnáth. Nuair nach féidir leis na bliosáin uile a táirgeadh a ghlacadh, téann siad chuig an margadh leasúcháin, mar a mbíonn praghsanna beagán níos lú de ghnáth.

Athraíodh dhá fhocal sa mhír chun feabhas a chur ar a brí: “bainte amach” athraíodh é sin go “gearrtha” toisc go mbaintear bliosáin le scian, agus “go laethúil” athraíodh é sin go “go seasta” toisc nach mbaintear na páirceanna gach lá; féadfaidh na bliosáin fás níos tapúla nó níos moille i ngeall ar na dálaí aimsire, rud a fhágann gur gá minicíocht na buainte a mhéadú nó a laghdú.

5.2.E.9

Foclaíocht na roinne, “Na plandaí a tharraingt suas”, de roinn E “Modh táirgthe”, den tsonraíocht táirge, leasaíodh í chun téacs iomarcach a bhaint amach agus na ceanglais shonracha a bhfuil feidhm acu maidir le “Alcachofa de Tudela” a chur i dtábhacht.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Leasaíodh an roinn sin chun a chur i dtábhacht maidir leis na corónacha fréimhe arna bplandú faoi TGFC “Alcachofa de Tudela”, nach mór dóibh teacht as dáileachtaí mar a bhfástar na bliosáin mar bharr bliantúil seachas mar bharr débhliantúil.

Cuireadh tagairt do mhí Iúil isteach toisc go dtarlaíonn an plandú i mí Iúil agus i mí Lúnasa.

Scriosadh an tuairisc ar tháirgeadh na gcorónacha fréimhe toisc nach gcumhdaítear an próiseas sin leis an tsonraíocht táirge.

5.2.E.10

Ceannteideal agus foclaíocht na roinne “An táirge a chur i láthair lena dhíol mar tháirge úr” de roinn E, “Modh táirgthe”, den tsonraíocht táirge, leasaíodh iad chun béim níos mó a leagan ar shaintréithe an táirge faoi chosaint agus míreanna a bhaint amach nach leagtar ceanglais chinntitheacha síos leo a bhaineann le saintréithe “Alcachofa de Tudela”.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Cuirtear i dtábhacht leis an téacs anois nach mór do na bliosáin teacht ó dháileachtaí cláraithe agus nach mór Blanca de Tudela a bheith sa tsaothróg: saintréithe sainiúla de chuid an táirge faoi chosaint is ea iad sin.

Scriosadh na sainmhínithe ar na cineálacha pacáistíochta a cheadaítear, rud na bhfágann go mbíonn sé de shaoirse ag oibreoirí cinneadh a dhéanamh maidir leis an gcineál pacáistíochta a úsáidfidh siad chun na bliosáin a mhargú. Ní mór dóibh an comhlacht rialúcháin a chur ar an eolas anois faoin bpacáistíocht a úsáideann siad. Anois go ndíoltar bliosáin mar tháirgí úra in ollmhargaí, bíonn éileamh ar aonaid díolacháin níos lú ná iad siúd a úsáidtear chun bliosáin a mhargú nuair a dréachtaíodh an tsonraíocht táirge. Ní mheastar an phacáistíocht a bheith ina saintréith shuaithinseach de “Alcachofa de Tudela” úr.

Tá an ceanglas sa téacs anois gurb amhlaidh, mar is amhlaidh i gcás “Alcachofa de Tudela” leasaithe, nach bhféadfar bogaigéadaithigh a chur le bliosáin a mhargaítear mar tháirgí úra.

Níl an ceanglas maidir leis an toisiú athraithe.

5.2.E.11

An chéad mhír den roinn “Bliosáin leasaithe” de roinn E, “Modh táirgthe”, den tsonraíocht táirge, leasaíodh í: cuireadh uimhriú isteach chun téacs níos comhleanúnaí a dhéanamh de agus scriosadh an tagairt do “roinn B” toisc nach leagtar aon cheanglas síos léi.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Cuireadh uimhriú leis an gceannteideal agus scriosadh an tagairt do “roinn B” toisc nach leagtar aon cheanglas síos léi.

Sonraítear anois leis an téacs nach bhféadfar ach táirgí den “Aicme Breise” agus de “Aicme I” a úsáid. Go traidisiúnta, ní bhíodh sé ceadaithe táirgí de “Aicme II” a úsáid chun an táirge leasaithe faoi chosaint a dhéanamh. Cuireadh ceanglas chuige sin leis an tsonraíocht táirge dá bhrí sin.

5.2.E.12

An dara mír den roinn “Bliosáin leasaithe” de roinn E, “Modh táirgthe”, den tsonraíocht táirge, leasaíodh í: cuireadh uimhriú isteach, athraíodh struchtúr an téacs chun téacs níos comhleanúnaí a dhéanamh de, agus scriosadh aon téacs nach leagtar ceanglais síos leis.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Athraíodh struchtúr na roinne sin chun na céimeanna difriúla i dtáirgeadh an táirge leasaithe a scaradh. Cuirtear i dtábhacht leis an téacs anois nach mór don amhábhar teacht ó dháileachtaí cláraithe agus nach mór an tsaothróg faoi chosaint a bheith i gceist leis. An tagairt d’aicme tráchtála na mbliosán úr, a baineadh as an roinn ábhartha, scriosadh ansin í freisin. Rinneadh an t-athrú sin toisc gur aisghaireadh an reachtaíocht lenar sainíodh “Aicme I” le haghaidh na mbliosán a mhargaítear mar tháirgí úra.

5.2.E.13

An tríú mír den roinn “Bliosáin leasaithe” de roinn E, “Modh táirgthe”, den tsonraíocht táirge, scriosadh í.

Na forais leis an mír sin a scriosadh: Anois go bhfuil struchtúr na roinne athraithe, níl aon chiall leis an mír sin a thuilleadh. Mínítear na ceanglais maidir leis an steiriliú níos déanaí sa téacs.

5.2.E.14

An ceathrú mír den roinn “Bliosáin leasaithe” de roinn E, “Modh táirgthe”, den tsonraíocht táirge, athraíodh a struchtúr: tá sí roinnte in dhá chuid.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Níor athraíodh ach struchtúr na míreanna; níor cuireadh aon fhaisnéis nua leo. Tá an mhír bhunaidh roinnte ina dhá chuid toisc go dtugtar tuairisc inti ar dhá chéim i bpróiseáil “Alcachofa de Tudela” leasaithe: ní agus bánú.

5.2.E.15

An cúigiú mír den roinn “Bliosáin leasaithe” de roinn E, “Modh táirgthe”, den tsonraíocht táirge, athraíodh a struchtúr: tá sí roinnte in dhá chuid.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Athraíodh struchtúr na míre sin, ach tá an fhaisnéis bhunaidh fós inti. Soiléirítear anois inti go rangaítear bliosáin de réir thrastomhas a gcroíthe. Tá an mhír bhunaidh roinnte ina dhá chuid toisc go dtugtar tuairisc inti ar dhá chéim i bpróiseáil “Alcachofa de Tudela” leasaithe: toisiú agus gearradh.

5.2.E.16

An séú mír den roinn “Bliosáin leasaithe” de roinn E, “Modh táirgthe”, den tsonraíocht táirge, athraíodh a struchtúr: tá sí roinnte in dhá chuid. Leasaíodh cuid den téacs chun na ceanglais maidir le “Alcachofa de Tudela” a chur i dtábhacht.

Na forais leis na leasuithe seo: Leasaíodh an struchtúr. Deighleadh an roinn lena láimhseáiltear an phacáil agus leacht leasaitheach a chur leis na bliosáin ón roinn maidir le réamhthéamh toisc go bhfuil dhá chéim dhifriúla sa phróiseas chun “Alcachofa de Tudela” leasaithe a tháirgeadh. Cuirtear i dtábhacht leis an roinn maidir le pacáil nach mór gan bogaigéadaithigh ná rialtáin aigéadachta a bheith sa táirge, toisc gur saintréith den táirge faoi chosaint é easpa na n-ábhar sin. Cuirtear i dtábhacht leis an téacs anois nach mór an coimeádán a bheith déanta de ghloine agus tugtar faoi deara ann go mbíonn an próiseas réamhthéite roghnach.

Leis an réamhthéamh, is éifeachtaí a bhaintear an t-aer a bhíonn sáinnithe sna coimeádáin amach, ach má bhíonn tréimhse fhada i gceist idir pacáil an táirge agus dúnadh agus steiriliú na gcoimeádán, is fearr gan teocht an táirge a mhéadú i ngeall ar an riosca micribhitheolaíocha a bhíonn bainteach. Leis an réamhthéamh, choimeádfaí na coimeádáin te ar feadh tréimhse fada go leor go bhfásfadh miocrorgánaigh theirmifileacha, rud a d’fhéadfadh a bheith ina údar le lobhadh an táirge dá éis sin.

5.2.E.17

An seachtú mír den roinn “Bliosáin leasaithe” de roinn E, “Modh táirgthe”, den tsonraíocht táirge bhunaidh, athraíodh a struchtúr: tá sí roinnte in dhá chuid. Leathnaíodh an sainmhíniú ar an téarma “steiriliú” chun é a shoiléiriú.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Úsáideadh an struchtúr céanna agus a úsáideadh sna míreanna roimhe. Cuimsítear leis an téacs anois an ceanglas nach mór an chóireáil teasa a bheith leordhóthanach chun a áirithiú go mbeidh an táirge caomhnaithe steiriúil lena mhargú; ceanglaítear é sin cheana féin faoi nósanna imeachta deimhniúcháin atá i bhfeidhm faoi láthair. B’fhearr a cheadú do na próiseálaithe cinneadh a dhéanamh cé acu foirm den chóireáil teasa a úsáidfidh siad le haghaidh an táirge chaomhnaithe, seachas teochtaí a shonrú mar a rinneadh leis an tsonraíocht táirge bhunaidh. Sonraítear go raibh an teocht le haghaidh an steirilithe idir 115 °C agus 121 °C: cé gurb é sin an gnáthraon teochta chun bliosáin chaomhnaithe a steiriliú, d’fhéadfadh uathchláibh nua a bheith ann amach anseo lena mbeadh modhanna cóireála níos oiriúnaí ar fáil nach mbeadh chomh dian ar fhuinneamh agus lena gcaomhnófaí uigeacht an táirge chaomhnaithe, mar a cheanglaítear le haghaidh stádas cosanta.

5.2.E.18

I roinn E, “Modh táirgthe”, den tsonraíocht táirge, baineadh an colún lena sainítear “Aicme II” as an tábla faoi “Alcachofa de Tudela” leasaithe.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Baineadh na ceanglais maidir leis an aicme tráchtála “Aicme II” as an tábla toisc nach gcumhdaítear an t-aicme sin le TGFC agus go bhféadfadh lua na gceanglas sin a bheith ina údar mearbhaill.

5.2.E.19

I roinn E, “Modh táirgthe”, den tsonraíocht táirge, pointe (2) den tuairisc ar aonfhoirmeacht na méide, leathnaíodh an pointe chun í a dhéanamh níos soiléire.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Is é an croí an chuid den bhliosán ar a mbíonn an meas is mó, agus bliosáin ar a bhfuil brachtanna an-mhór, meastar gur measa a gcáilíocht ná bliosáin ar a bhfuil brachtanna níos lú toisc gur lú den bhrachta a gearradh amach nuair a próiseáladh na croíthe. Is é sin an fáth go gcuirtear i dtábhacht leis an téacs anois go dtomhaistear an aonfhoirmeacht trí shúil a thabhairt ar aonfhoirmeacht fhad an bhrachta. Déantar an tomhas mar a rinneadh roimhe, mar atá, trí 20 % de na bliosáin ar a bhfuil brachtanna níos faide a thógáil mar aon le 20 % díobh siúd ar a bhfuil brachtanna níos giorra, agus an toradh a thaispeáint mar chóimheas idir an dá ghrúpa.

5.2.F Leasuithe nach ndéanann difear do phríomheilimintí de roinn F, “Nasc” den tsonraíocht táirge

Baineann na leasuithe thíos le scriosadh na míreanna go príomha, agus ní dhéanann cuid den roinn “Nasc” difear do phríomheilimintí ná do chineál an naisc.

5.2.F.1

Na chéad trí mhír de roinn ‘1. Scriosadh “Stairiúil” de roinn F, “Nasc” den tsonraíocht táirge.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Scriosadh na míreanna sin toisc nach soláthraíonn siad aon fhaisnéis shonrach faoi “Alcachofa de Tudela”, ach pléitear an t-uisciú in Navarre ina áit sin iontu.

5.2.F.2

Scriosadh an tagairt do Léarscáileanna 2 agus 5 as roinn “2. Nádúrtha” de roinn F, “Nasc”, den tsonraíocht táirge toisc nach gcuimsítear iad sin mar iarscríbhinní a thuilleadh, agus leasaíodh foclaíocht na roinne chun nach dtagrófar léi ach don limistéar sainithe amháin.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Scriosadh an tagairt don dá léarscáil agus ní thugtar tuairisc sa téacs ach ar an limistéar sainithe amháin. Tá na léarscáileanna sa tsonraíocht táirge bhunaidh sean agus ní maith taifeach na léarscáileanna sin, ná ní chuireann siad aon fhaisnéis leis an tsonraíocht táirge.

5.2.F.3

Scriosadh an tagairt do Léarscáil 5 as roinn “2. Nádúrtha b) Ithreacha 1. Geolaíocht agus liteolaíocht” de roinn F, “Nasc” den tsonraíocht táirge, toisc nach gcuimsítear mar iarscríbhinn a thuilleadh iad.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Scriosadh an tagairt do na léarscáileanna. Tá na léarscáileanna sa tsonraíocht táirge bhunaidh sean agus ní maith taifeach na léarscáileanna sin, ná ní chuireann siad aon fhaisnéis leis an tsonraíocht táirge.

5.2.F.4

Na chéad cúig mhír de roinn ‘2. Nádúrtha b) Ithreacha 2. Scriosadh “saintréithe ithreach” de roinn F, “Nasc” den tsonraíocht táirge.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Scriosadh na míreanna sin toisc nach dtugtar tuairisc iontu ar shaintréithe ithreach na n-ithreacha sa limistéar sainithe ach tuairisc ina áit sin ar an aicmiú ginearálta na hithreach. Arís eile, scriosadh na tagairtí do na léarscáileanna mar a mhínítear thuas; ní chuimsítear mar iarscríbhinní a thuilleadh iad.

5.2.F.5

Scriosadh an tagairt do Léarscáil 8 agus na ceithre mhír dheireanacha as roinn “2. Nádúrtha c) Aeráid” de roinn F, “Nasc” den tsonraíocht táirge.

Na forais leis an roinn sin a scriosadh: Scriosadh an tagairt do na léarscáileanna toisc nach cuid iad den tsonraíocht táirge a thuilleadh. Na míreanna lena dtugtar tuairisc ar an aeráid bunaithe ar na barra a d’fhéadfaí a fhás, scriosadh iad freisin toisc gur míreanna ginearálta iad: pléitear iontu an poitéinseal chun barra eile seachas “Alcachofa de Tudela” a fhás, i.e. an barra a chumhdaítear leis an tsonraíocht táirge.

5.2.F.6

Scriosadh roinnt míreanna agus an tagairt do Léarscáil 11 as roinn “2. Nádúrtha c) Hidreagrafaíocht” de roinn F, “Nasc” den tsonraíocht táirge.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Na míreanna lena láimhseáiltear bainistíocht na n-acmhainní uisce, baineadh as an roinn iad lena dtugtar tuairisc ar an hidreagrafaíocht, toisc nach bhfuil ábhartha le saintréithe “Alcachofa de Tudela”.

Scriosadh an tagairt do Léarscáil 11 toisc nach gcuimsítear mar iarscríbhinn a thuilleadh í, ós rud é gur seanléarscáil atá ann nár sholáthair aon fhaisnéis.

5.2.F.7

An roinn “2. Nádúrtha e) Flóra agus móinéir nádúrtha” de roinn F, “Nasc” den tsonraíocht táirge, scriosadh iad.

Na forais leis an roinn sin a scriosadh: Scriosadh an roinn maidir le flóra agus móinéir nádúrtha. Cé go dtugtar tuairisc mhionsonraithe inti ar an bhflóra agus ar na móinéir nádúrtha atá sa limistéar sainithe, ní bhaineann sí le haon saintréith shonrach de “Alcachofa de Tudela”.

5.2.G Leasuithe dréachtaithe ar roinn G, “Comhlacht rialúcháin”, den tsonraíocht táirge

Rinneadh athrú ó bhonn ar sheantéacs na roinne “Comhlacht rialúcháin”: scriosadh an fhaisnéis neamhábhartha ar fad agus tugadh mionsonraí an chomhlachta rialúcháin cothrom le dáta.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Bhí faisnéis sa roinn “Comhlacht rialúcháin” sa leagan roimhe seo den tsonraíocht táirge nach bhfuil ábhartha sa chomhthéacs seo, mar atá, tuairisc ar an struchtúr, ar na cumhachtaí agus ar na dualgais a bhaineann le comhlacht bainistíochta TGFC mar a leagtar amach i reachtaíocht náisiúnta. Scriosadh an fhaisnéis sin agus cuireadh mionsonraí an chomhlachta rialúcháin ina hionad, ar é sin an comhlacht a sheiceálann comhlíontacht na sonraíochta táirge i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 37(1) de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1151/2012 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 21 Samhain 2012 maidir le scéimeanna cáilíochta do tháirgí talmhaíochta agus do bhia-earraí.

5.2.H Leasuithe nach ndéanann difear do phríomheilimintí de roinn H, “Lipéadú”, den tsonraíocht táirge

5.2.H.1

Scriosadh an chéad dhá phointe den roinn “Lipéadú” den tsonraíocht táirge.

Na forais leis na pointí sin a scriosadh: Scriosadh an dá phointe sin toisc nach soláthraíonn siad aon fhaisnéis bhreise agus toisc go bhféadfaidís a bheith ina n-údar le míléirithe. Féadfar dhá eilimint dhifriúla a úsáid chun na bliosáin a dheimhniú, mar atá, an lipéad deimhniúcháin agus an banda, agus bíonn idir an lipéad agus an banda uimhrithe agus is é an Bord Rialála a eisíonn iad. Tugtar tuairisc orthu níos faide síos.

5.2.H.2

An tríú pointe sa roinn “Lipéadú” den tsonraíocht táirge, leasaíodh í: scriosadh an abairt dheireanach agus cuireadh an abairt “nó bandaí” leis an chéad abairt.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Mar a luaitear sa mhír roimhe, ní mór an banda nó an lipéad deimhniúcháin a bheith ar phacáistíocht uile “Alcachofa de Tudela”, bíodh sí le haghaidh bliosáin úra nó leasaithe, agus is é sin an fáth a bhfuil an abairt “nó bandaí” curtha isteach. Níor scriosadh an abairt dheireanach toisc nach gcuirtear aon rud leis an mír léi. Is léir nach táirgí deimhnithe iad bliosáin ar nach bhfuil lipéad deimhniúcháin ná banda deimhniúcháin.

5.2.H.3

Leasaíodh an ceathrú agus an cúigiú pointí den roinn “Lipéadú” den tsonraíocht táirge. Scriosadh an abairt dheireanach as an gceathrú pointe agus leasaíodh foclaíocht an chúigiú pointe, toisc nach léirítear an córas deimhniúcháin atá i bhfeidhm faoi láthair leo.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Scriosadh an chuid dheireanach den cheathrú pointe toisc go dtagraítear léi do choincheapa nach bhfuil le feiceáil sa chóras deimhniúcháin atá i bhfeidhm faoi láthair, amhail údarú na saoráidí agus dícháiliú táirgí ag an mBord Rialála. Níl an Bord Rialála freagrach as saoráidí cláraithe a údarú, ná as an táirge a cháiliú nó a dhícháiliú; is é an t-oibreoir cláraithe a dhéanann cinntí maidir le cáiliú agus le dícháiliú. Sonraítear fós leis an téacs nach mór don lipéadú tarlú i saoráidí cláraithe. Chun bheith cláraithe, ní mór go n-éireoidh le saoráid sna cigireachtaí uile agus a bheith deimhnithe mar mhonarcha phróiseála nó mar shaoráid margaíochta “Alcachofa de Tudela”, mar a thugtar tuairisc orthu i roinn “Cigireachtaí”.

Is é sin an fáth freisin gur baineadh amach an ceanglas maidir le húdarú na lipéad tráchtála ag an mBord Rialála. Ina áit sin, sonraítear anois leis an téacs nach mór lipéid a chur faoi bhráid an Bhoird Rialála lena gclárú. Cé nach n-údaraíonn an Bord Rialála lipéid tráchtála, ní mó dó na lipéid uile lena n-úsáidtear na marcálacha a chlárú. Leasaíodh an mhír dá bhrí sin chun a shonrú nach mór lipéid a chur faoi bhráid an Bhoird Rialála. Le linn an phróisis chlárúcháin, féadfar diúltú don údarú chun lógó TGFC úsáid más rud é go bhféadfaí mearbhall a chur ar thomhaltóirí leis na lipéid.

Ar deireadh, an mhír lena luaitear diúltú ón mBord Rialála lipéid a fhormheas, scriosadh í toisc gurb amhlaidh faoi reachtaíocht atá i bhfeidhm faoi láthair, nach mbíonn an Bord Rialála freagrach as lipéid a fhormheas ná as diúltú déanamh amhlaidh.

5.2.H.5

An pointe deireanach den roinn “Lipéadú” den tsonraíocht táirge, leasaíodh í: cuireadh an abairt “agus bandaí” isteach ansin freisin, agus cuimsíodh na grafaicí sa téacs seachas iad a bheith le feiceáil mar iarscríbhinn (mar ab amhlaidh an cás sa tsonraíocht táirge bhunaidh).

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Arís eile, cuireadh an abairt “agus banda” isteach toisc gurb iad an lipéad deimhniúcháin a luaitear sa téacs bunaidh agus an banda na heilimintí deimhniúcháin.

Cuireadh na grafaicí le haghaidh an lógó, an lipéid deimhniúcháin agus an bhanda isteach sa phríomhdhoiciméad seachas iad a chuimsiú mar iarscríbhinn.

5.2.I Leasuithe nach ndéanann difear do phríomheilimintí de roinn I, “Reachtaíocht náisiúnta is infheidhme”, den tsonraíocht táirge

Baineadh amach na tagairtí do reachtaíocht náisiúnta atá aisghairthe. Cuireadh tagairt isteach don reachtaíocht maidir le caighdeáin cháilíochta le haghaidh glasraí leasaithe, rud atá ábhartha toisc go leagtar síos leis an reachtaíocht sin na haicmí tráchtála le haghaidh táirgí úra leasaithe.

Na forais leis an leasú seo: Aisghaireadh an reachtaíocht uile dá dtagraítear sa liosta roimhe.

Cé nach gceanglaítear an roinn sin maidir le reachtaíocht náisiúnta is infheidhme a chuimsiú i sonraíochtaí táirge faoi Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1151/2012 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 21 Samhain 2012 maidir le scéimeanna cáilíochta do tháirgí talmhaíochta agus do bhia-earraí, coinníodh an roinn sin chun na tagairtí don Ordú ó Oifig an Phríomhaire an 21 Samhain 1984 a choimeád, ar ordú é lenar formheasadh na caighdeáin cháilíochta maidir le táirgí úra a leasú, toisc gurb í an reachtaíocht sin is infheidhme go sonrach maidir le “Alcachofa de Tudela” leasaithe.

DOICIMÉAD AONAIR

“ALCACHOFA DE TUDELA”

Uimh. AE: PGI-ES-0139-AM01 — 9.9.2021

STFC ( ) TGFC (X)

1. Ainm nó ainmneacha [STFC nó TGFC]

“Alcachofa de Tudela”

2. Ballstát nó tríú tír

An Spáinn

3. Tuairisc ar an táirge talmhaíochta nó ar an mbia-earra

3.1. An cineál táirge

Aicme 1.6. Torthaí, glasraí agus gránaigh úra nó phróiseáilte

3.2. Tuairisc ar an táirge lena mbaineann an t-ainm in (1)

Faightear “Alcachofa de Tudela” ó bhliosáin de shaothróg Blanca de Tudela, a fhástar ar phlandálacha cláraithe.

Is éard is bliosáin ann cinn bhláthanna speiceas Cynara scolymus L. “Blanca de Tudela”. Bíonn cruth maith orthu agus an dath glas agus cruth cruinn, beagán éileapsóideach orthu, a bhaineann leis an tsaothróg go hiondúil.

Féadfar “Alcachofa de Tudela” a chur i láthair mar a leanas:

—	mar tháirgí úra, in éineacht le gas (nuair a mhargaítear in éineacht le gas atá thart ar 18 cm ar a fhad) nó gan ghas (nuair a bhíonn an gas níos giorra ná 10 cm);

—	i bhformáid atá réidh le húsáid sa chistin, nuair a bhíonn sé scafa agus pacáistithe ar bhealach chun go mbeidh an táirge úr i gcónaí;

—	i bhformáid leasaithe, mar chroíthe bliosáin nó bliosáin ina dhá leath, gan aon aigéadú. Ní mór pH deiridh an táirge leasaithe a bheith níos mó ná 5,0.

3.3. Beatha (maidir le táirgí de thionscnamh ainmhíoch amháin) agus amhábhair (maidir le táirgí próiseáilte amháin)

Is iad bliosáin de chineál Blanca de Tudela an t-amhábhar le haghaidh “Alcachofa de Tudela”, de thionscnamh an limistéir gheografaigh shainithe go heisiach. Ní fhéadfar a mhargú mar tháirgí úra ach bliosáin a fhástar mar bharr bliantúil, ach is féidir bliosáin a fhástar mar bharr bliantúil nó débhliantúil a úsáid le haghaidh an táirge leasaithe.

Ní mór bliosáin atá le díol mar tháirgí úra a bheith iomlán, folláin, saor ó dhamáiste arb é galar nó lotnaidí is cúis leis, glan, agus saor ó bholadh agus ó bhlas eachtrach.

Ní mór bliosáin atá réidh le húsáid sa chistin a scamhadh agus a phacáistiú ar bhealach lena gcoimeádfar a n-úire. Ní mór a saintréithe a bheith comhchosúil le saintréithe na mbliosán sin atá beartaithe lena n-ith mar tháirgí úra.

Ní mór táirgí “ Aicme Breise” nó “Aicme I” a bheith i gceist le bliosáin leasaithe, arna bpacáil i gcoimeádáin ghloine gan aon bogaigéadaitheach, agus iad steirilithe le teas. Féadfar iad a dhíol ina hiomláine nó ina dhá leath.

3.4. Céimeanna sonracha sa táirgeadh nach mór dóibh tarlú sa limistéar geografach sainithe

Ní mór plandálacha ina bhfástar “Alcachofa de Tudela” a bheith lonnaithe sna 33 bhardas sainithe.

Ní mór na trádstórais agus na saoráidí tionsclaíocha ina n-ullmhaítear an táirge leasaithe agus ina ndéantar an táirge úr nó an táirge atá réidh le húsáid sa chistin a bheith lonnaithe in Navarre.

3.5. Sainrialacha maidir le slisniú, grátáil, agus pacáistiú etc. an táirge dá dtagraíonn an t-ainm cláraithe

Ní mór inneachar gach pacáiste de bhliosáin úra, bliosáin atá réidh le húsáid sa chistin nó bliosáin leasaithe a chuirtear ar an margadh a bheith aonfhoirmeach agus ní mór gan bheith in aon phacáiste ach bliosáin a fhástar sa limistéar táirgthe, de chineál Blanca de Tudela, agus ní mór dóibh na ceanglais cháilíochta is infheidhme maidir leis an aicme tráchtála a thugtar le fios a chomhlíonadh.

3.6. Sainrialacha maidir le lipéadú an táirge dá dtagraíonn an t-ainm cláraithe

Ní mór na lipéid nó na bandaí deimhniúcháin uimhrithe arna n-eisiúint ag an mBord Rialála a bheith ar an bpacáistíocht uile a úsáidtear le haghaidh táirgí úra agus leasaithe, cibé formáid a bhíonn i gceist léi, agus is é an deimhniú ráthaíochta le haghaidh an táirge faoi chosaint iad na lipéid nó na bandaí sin.

Ní mór na lipéid agus na lipéid deimhniúcháin le haghaidh na mbliosán faoi chosaint a ghreamú i saoráidí cláraithe. Tá feidhm aige sin maidir le bliosáin a dhíoltar mar tháirgí úra agus maidir le bliosáin leasaithe.

Ní mór do chuideachtaí próiseála agus/nó ullmhúcháin cláraithe lipéid a chur faoi bhráid an Bhoird Rialála lena gclárú sula gcuirfear i gcúrsaíocht iad.

Lógó TGFC agus an lipéad agus an banda deimhniúcháin uimhrithe arna eisiúint ag an mBord Rialála mar ráthaíocht ar dheimhniú an táirge faoi chosaint, taispeántar thíos iad:


Lógó TGFC “Alcachofa de Tudela”	Lipéad deimhniúcháin

Banda

4. Sainmhíniú achomair ar an limistéar geografach

An limistéar geografach nach mór na plandálacha a bheith lonnaithe iontu, tá sé níos srianta ná an limistéar geografach nach mór na trádstórais agus na saoráidí tionsclaíocha a bheith lonnaithe iontu, arb iad na trádstórais agus na saoráidí tionsclaíocha ina n-ullmhaítear an táirge leasaithe agus ina ndéantar an táirge úr nó an táirge atá réidh le húsáid sa chistin a phacáistiú.

An limistéar fáis nach mór plandálacha “Alcachofa de Tudela” a bheith lonnaithe ann, tá sé comhdhéanta de 33 bhardas, a bhfuil siad ar fad lonnaithe in Navarre: Ablitas, Andosilla, Arguedas, Azagra, Barillas, Buñuel, Cabanillas, Cadreita, Cárcar, Cascante, Castejón, Cintruénigo, Corella, Cortes, Falces, Fitero, Fontellas, Funes, Fustiñana, Lodosa, Marcilla, Mendavia, Milagro, Monteagudo, Murchante, Peralta, Ribaforada, San Adrián, Sartaguda, Tudela, Tulebras, Valtierra agus Villafranca.

Ní mór na trádstórais agus na saoráidí tionsclaíocha a bheith lonnaithe in Navarre, arb iad na trádstórais agus na saoráidí tionsclaíocha ina n-ullmhaítear an táirge leasaithe agus ina ndéantar an táirge úr nó an táirge atá réidh le húsáid sa chistin a phacáistiú.

5. Nasc leis an limistéar geografach

Tá an nasc idir an limistéar geografach agus “Alcachofa de Tudela” bunaithe ar cháilíocht an táirge, rud atá múnlaithe le saintréithe an limistéir gheografaigh agus leis an mbealach a fhástar na bliosáin.

5.1. Sainiúlacht an táirge

Is é Blanca de Tudela an t-aon chineál amháin a cheadaítear, atá de thionscnamh an limistéir fáis gheografaigh agus a d’fhorbair feirmeoirí sa limistéar sainithe tríd an roghnúchán, in imeacht roinnt mhaith blianta.

Ní fhéadfar a mhargú mar tháirgí úra ach bliosáin a fhástar mar bharr bliantúil, ach is féidir bliosáin a fhástar mar bharr bliantúil nó débhliantúil a úsáid le haghaidh an táirge chaomhnaithe. Is leis na plandaí a tharraingt aníos agus le plandaí “seach-tíopa” a dhíothú a fhágtar gur féidir bliosáin ar ardchaighdeán a fháil lena léirítear saintréithe sainiúla an chineáil: dath glas agus cruth cruinn, beagán éileapsóideach orthu.

Déantar an táirge leasaithe a phacáil i gcoimeádáin ghloine agus ní dhéantar é a aigéadú. Is é sin an modh traidisiúnta le bliosáin leasaithe a tháirgeadh sa limistéar sainithe. Fágann sé sin gur féidir blas nádúrtha an táirge a choimeád, rud is comhchosúla le blas na mbliosán úr toisc nach n-úsáidtear bogaigéadaithigh ná rialtáin aigéadachta.

5.2. Sainiúlacht an limistéir gheografaigh

Sa limistéar geografach sainithe, is é an córas uisce a chruthaítear le habhainn Ebro agus a craobh-aibhneacha, an Ega, an Aragón agus an Arga, a d’fhág gur tháinig modh saothraithe chun cinn a chothaítear le huiscí abhainn Ebro. Soláthraítear na dálaí den scoth le haghaidh na mbliosán leis an meascán d’ithreacha aolmhara, aeráid ghrianmhar agus difríochtaí suntasacha sa teocht idir an geimhreadh agus an samhradh.

Is iad táirgeoirí áitiúla a d’fhorbair an t-aon chineál amháin atá faoi chosaint, Blanca de Tudela, tríd an roghnúchán, agus is cineál é a oireann don limistéar sainithe go foirfe.

5.3. An bealach a bhfuil tionchar ag saintréithe sonracha an limistéir gheografaigh ar an táirge

Tugtar roinnt saintréithe sainiúla do bhliosáin “Alcachofa de Tudela” de bharr an limistéir gheografaigh ina bhfástar é. Is le suanacht an gheimhridh, rud a thionscnaítear go nádúrtha le teochtaí ísle an limistéir fáis sa gheimhreadh, a thugtar cáilíocht don bhliosán, agus é ag teacht faoi bhláth ag deireadh an gheimhridh, lena ndéantar bliosán ar leith de i gcomparáid le barra a fhásta i limistéir níos measartha a bhíonn, gan dabht, níos táirgiúla. Bíonn brachtanna níos dlúithe agus blas níos fearr ar an mbliosán a fhaightear.

An modh a úsáidtear chun an táirge leasaithe a tháirgeadh – i.e. gan an táirge a aigéadú, agus é a phacáil i gcoimeádáin ghloine – is saintréith den limistéar sainithe é sin agus fágann sé gur féidir táirge a fháil ag a bhfuil saintréithe céadfacha atá comhchosúil le bliosáin úra.

Oireann “Alcachofa de Tudela”, agus go háirithe cineál Blanca de Tudela, don ithir agus do na dálaí aeráide sa limistéar sainithe go foirfe agus é uiscithe. Tá sé á fhás sa limistéar sin ó na Meánaoiseanna ar a laghad.

Is iomaí tagairt bhibleagrafach do “Alcachofa de Tudela” atá ann. Tagraíonn an léirmheastóir Caius Apicius (Cristiano Alvarez) do “Alcachofa de Tudela” mar “bhanríon na gcineálacha bliosáin ar fad”. Tá roinnt mhaith oideas traidisiúnta sa limistéar sainithe bunaithe ar “Alcachofa de Tudela” agus, mar a thugann Victor Manuel Sarobe faoi deara sa leabhar La cocina popular navarra [Cócaireacht thraidisiúnta Navarre], is comhábhar é “Alcachofa de Tudela” i menestra Tudela [stobhach glasraí agus piseánach] barántúil.

Tagairt d’fhoilsiú na sonraíochta

https://bit.ly/3iY2g7O

(1) IO L 343, 14.12.2012, lch. 1.

13.4.2023

Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh

C 129/67

Foilsiú iarratais ar ainm a chlárú de bhun Airteagal 50(2)(a) de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1151/2012 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle maidir le scéimeanna cáilíochta do tháirgí talmhaíochta agus do bhia-earraí

(2023/C 129/07)

Leis an bhfoilseachán seo, tugtar an ceart chun cur i gcoinne an iarratais de bhun Airteagal 51 de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1151/2012 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle (1) laistigh de 3 mhí ó dháta an fhoilseacháin seo.

DOICIMÉAD AONAIR

“Българско бяло саламурено сирене/Bulgarsko byalo salamureno sirene”’

Uimh. AE: PDO-BG-02656 — 4.2.2021

STFC (X) TGFC ( )

1. Ainm nó ainmneacha [STFC nó TGFC]

“Българско бяло саламурено сирене Bulgarsko byalo salamureno sirene”

2. Ballstát nó Tríú Tír

Poblacht na Bulgáire

3. Tuairisc ar an táirge talmhaíochta nó ar an mbia-ábhar

3.1. Cineál táirge

Rang 1.3 – Cáiseanna

3.2. Tuairisc ar an táirge lena mbaineann an t-ainm in (1)

Is éard atá in “Българско бяло саламурено сирене/Bulgarsko byalo salamureno sirene” táirge bainne choipthe a dhéantar as bainne gan bearradh caorach, gabhair, buabhaill nó bainne measctha lena gcuirtear saothráin tús gabhála ina bhfuil Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis agus Lactobacillus casei, chomh maith le saothráin tús gabhála siombóiseach ó na baictéir Lactobacillicus delbrueckii ssp.bulgaricus agus Streptococcus thermophilus a fhaightear trí ghruthú a dhéanamh le giosta le haghaidh cáise a ndearnadh cóireáil riachtanach air, a aibiú i sáile agus atá ceaptha lena chaitheamh.

Saintréithe orgánaileipteacha

—	Cuma: Bán, glanghearrtha ar nós poircealláin, bíodh pócaí aeir scoite de bharr baictéir ann nó ná bíodh, gan aon srathú feiceálach, agus dath air a bhaineann go sonrach leis an gcineál bainne. Tá na píosaí déanta go maith, scarann siad go héasca agus ní imíonn siad ina mbrus.

—	Cruth: Píosaí i soic chomhthreomhara ar a bhfuil bonn cearnógach agus taobhanna dronuilleogacha – fad: idir 100 agus 220 mm, leithead: idir 100 gagus 110 mm, airde: idir 80 agus 100 mm.

—	Méid: Idir 0,2 agus 2,0 kg.

—	Dath: Bán, ina bhfuil imir a bhaineann go sonrach leis an gcineál bainne.

—	Uigeacht: Measartha teann, fillteach.

—

Blas: A bhaineann go sonrach le cáis aibí faoi sháile. Measartha goirt agus blas aigéid lachtaigh suntasach séimh air. Is iad comhdhéanamh an tsaothráin tús gabhála agus an t-aibiú i sáile a chinneann blas agus cumhra an táirge, seachas an cineál bainne a fhaightear ó na hainmhithe éagsúla. Déanann na saothráin tús gabhála, ina bhfuil gaol siombóiseach idir Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus agus Streptococcus thermophilus, chomh maith leis na próisis choipthe, difear d’airíonna orgánaileipteacha tipiciúla an táirge.

Paraiméadair fhisicheimiceacha

—

Ní mór 46 % ar a laghad den táirge críochnaithe “Българско бяло саламурено сирене/Bulgarsko byalo salamureno sirene” a dhéantar as bainne bó, gabhair nó measctha a bheith ina ábhar tirim agus 48 % ar a laghad de “Българско бяло саламурено сирене/Bulgarsko byalo salamureno sirene” a dhéantar as bainne caorach nó buabhaill.

—	Ní mór 44 % ar a laghad de chion saille bainne bó agus gabhair a bheith ina ábhar tirim, 48 % i gcás bainne buabhaill agus caorach agus 45 % i gcás bainne mheasctha.

—	Ní mór aigéadacht an táirge chríochnaithe a bheith idir pH 4,2 agus 4,4 nó idir 200 agus 300 ° T.

—	Ní cheadaítear leasaithigh, cobhsaitheoirí ná eiblitheoirí sa táirge críochnaithe.

—	Ní mór an céatadán salainn a bheith sa raon 3,5 % ± 0,5 % i mais iomlán na cáise agus 6 agus 10 % sa sáile.

—	Níl an méid aibíochta (cóimheas próitéine intuaslagtha le próitéin iomlán, in %) níos lú ná 14 % i gcás cáise déanta as bainne bó, buabhaill nó bainne measctha agus 16 % i gcás bainne caorach.

—	Tarlaíonn an méid sin aibithe laistigh d’íostréimhse 45 lá le haghaidh cáis déanta as bainne bó agus gabhair agus 60 lá i gcás cáis a dhéantar as bainne caorach, bainne buabhaill agus bainne measctha.

3.3. Beatha (maidir le táirgí de thionscnamh ainmhíoch amháin) agus amhábhair (maidir le táirgí próiseáilte amháin)

Féadtar 20 % den bheatha in aghaidh na bliana a fháil lasmuigh den limistéar geografach. Ní mór forlíonadh a dhéanamh i ndálaí aeráide neamhfhabhracha i gcás nach bhfuil an bheatha a tháirgtear sa limistéar geografach leordhóthanach. Toisc nach dtugtar ach méid beag beatha a fhaightear lasmuigh den limistéar geografach ní dhéantar difear do shaintréithe an táirge arb í an timpeallacht gheografach is mó is cúis leo.

Tugtar beatha do na hainmhithe agus anuas air sin cuirtear ar féarach iad. Tá féarach san iliomad áiteanna ar fud na tíre. Leanann an tréimhse féaraigh ó mhí an Mhárta go mí na Samhna. Cuidíonn dálaí nádúrtha agus aeráide sa Bhulgáir le feirmeoireacht beostoic agus le hainmhithe a bheathú ó cheann ceann na bliana le meascán d’fhéara, a úsáidtear agus iad úr agus i bhfoirm féir thirim agus sadhlais araon. Is í an tréimhse innilte níos faide is cúis le héagsúlacht na mianraí agus na vitimíní i gcomhdhéanamh an bhainne amh. Tá cion cothromaithe sonrach ann de phríomh-chomhábhair mar atá substaintí mianracha (potaisiam, maignéisiam, fosfar, agus cailciam) agus vitimíní (A,B, E agus D agus aigéad fólach) agus tagann sin as na hainmhithe déiríochta a chur ar féarach. Tá na substaintí cothaitheacha sin ar fáil sa táirge críochnaithe.

Is i bPoblacht na Bulgáire atá an limistéar geografach ina dtáirgtear “Българско бяло саламурено сирене/Bulgarsko byalo salamureno sirene”. Is tréith idirdhealaitheach an bhainne amh an leibhéal ard Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus.

Ní mór saothráin tús gabhála na mbaictéar Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis agus Lactobacillus casei, chomh maith le saothráin tús gabhála shiombóiseacha ó na baictéir Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus agus Streptococcus thermophilus, nach bhfuil faoi réir géinmhodhnaithe, a tháirgeadh ar chríoch na Bulgáire.

3.4. Céimeanna sonracha sa táirgeadh nach mór a dhéanamh sa limistéar geografach sainithe

Tarlaíonn na céimeanna uile sa phróiseas táirgthe ar chríoch Phoblacht na Bulgáire.

Céim 1 –

Amhábhair a ghlacadh, a rangú, a chaighdeánú agus stóráil

Céim 2 –

Bainne a phaistéaradh

Céim 3 –

Bainne a ghruthú

Céim 4 –

Gruth binide a ghearradh agus a phróiseáil

Céim 5 –

An gruth a fháscadh

Céim 6 –

Sailleadh – rogha thirim nó fhliuch

Céim 7 –

Réamh-aibiú

Céim 8 –

Sailleadh agus pacáistí a dhúnadh

Céim 9 –

Cáis a aibiú faoi sháile

3.5. Sainrialacha maidir le slisniú, grátáil, agus pacáistiú etc. an táirge dá dtagraíonn an t-ainm cláraithe

Déantar an táirge a ghearradh, a phacáistiú agus a lipéadú sa ghléasra déiríochta i bPoblacht na Bulgáire, áit a ndéantar é a tháirgeadh. An pacáistiú in aonaid tomhaltóra a dhéantar tar éis céim an aibithe a bheith déanta, ní mór go ndéanfar é sin sa ghléasra déiríochta i bPoblacht na Bulgáire, áit a ndearnadh an táirge a tháirgeadh. Mura ndéantar sin, bíonn baol ann go dtiocfaidh athruithe ar cháilíochtaí fisiciceimiceacha, micribhitheolaíocha agus blas an táirge. Ní mór an táirgeadh a phacáistiú díreach tar éis é a bhaint as an sáile chun an teagmháil leis an aer a íosmhéadú. Bíonn an táirge an-tais-scópach, is é sin le rá go n-ionsúnn sé bolaithe go héasca, rud a d’fhágfadh, b’fhéidir, go mbeadh drochbhlas air agus a dhéanfadh difear dá cháilíocht. Is féidir an cháis a phacáistiú i bpacáistí folúis sceo phoileitiléin, cannaí miotail, boscaí plaisteacha agus cascaí adhmaid.

3.6. Sainrialacha maidir le lipéadú an táirge dá dtagraíonn an t-ainm cláraithe

—

4. Sainiú gonta ar an limistéar geografach

Is i bPoblacht na Bulgáire atá an limistéar geografach ina dtáirgtear Българско бяло саламурено сирене/Bulgarsko byalo salamureno sirene'.

5. Nasc leis an limistéar geografach

Tá clú agus cáil ar an ainm “Българско бяло саламурено сирене / Bulgarsko byalo salamureno sirene” sa Bhulgáir féin agus ar fud an domhain. Scríobhadh ailt faoi san iliomad irisleabhar agus foilseachán.

Déantar an cháis a tháirgeadh ar fud na Bulgáire de réir teicníc sheanbhunaithe. Cuidíonn dálaí fabhracha nádúrtha agus aeráide sa Bhulgáir le forbairt baictéar lachtach amhail Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus, a úsáidtear sa táirgeadh agus a dhéanann difear dá saintréithe sonracha.

Tá sé curtha síos don Dr Stamen Grigoroff, mac léinn leighis in Ollscoil na Ginéive, gurbh é a d’fhionn an baictéar in 1905. Go gairid ina dhiaidh sin, in 1907, tugadh an t-ainm Bacillus bulgaricus (Grigoroff) ar an miocrorgánach slat-chruthach a d’fhionn sé, nó Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus mar atá aithne air anois de réir aicmiú Bergey (agus cuirtear béim leis an ainm sin ar an gcríoch).

5.1. Sainiúlacht an limistéir gheografaigh

Bíonn aeráid sách séimh le méideanna measartha teasa agus taise tipiciúil don Bhulgáir, an limistéar geografach ina dtáirgtear an cháis. Bíonn an mheánteocht bhliantúil sa Bhulgáir idir 10 °C agus 14 °C, rud atá tipiciúil i ndomhanleithid mheasartha. Is réamhchoinníoll iad dálaí nádúrtha agus aeráide le haghaidh féarthailte a bheith i machairí agus i limistéir shléibhe araon, rud a chuidíonn le táirgeadh bainne. Soláthraítear réim bia cothrom éagsúil do na hainmhithe san fhéarach nádúrtha agus síolaithe toisc gurb ann d’fhéara, glasraí léagúmacha agus gránaigh. Maireann na cultúir sin go rathúil i limistéir in ísealchríocha agus i gceantair arda sléibhe araon. Fásann breis agus 2 000 cineál luibhe amhail crúibín cait, mormónta na páirce, lus an sparáin agus luibheanna eile ar fhéarthailte nádúrtha. Is iad na príomhshubstaintí gníomhacha atá freagrach as a n-airíonna frithocsaídeacha díorthaigh feanólacha, agus vitimíní A, E agus C. Baineann siad tairbhe as cumhra na beatha agus as cumhra agus comhdhéanamh an bhainne amh. Ainmhithe déiríochta a chur ar féarach, chomh maith le beathú forlíontach le beatha ón limistéar geografach, déanann sin difear deimhneach do chion mianraí agus vitimíní chomhdhéanamh an bhainne amh. Déanann comhdhéanamh ceimiceach, airíonna fisiciceimiceacha agus aibíocht bhitheolaíoch difear do bhlas agus cáilíocht an táirge.

Cuidíonn na dálaí aeráide le forbairt na mbaictéar lachtach amhail Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus, arb é atá ann ar fud na Bulgáire. Tá an baictéar ar fáil go nádúrtha sa Bhulgáir, áit a bhfuil sé le fáil i gcainníochtaí móra, ina flóra agus fána, agus i ndrúcht an fhéir sna móinéir agus in uiscí fuaráin. Tugann an tsainiris eolaíochta Scripta Scientifica Pharmaceutica (iml. 1, 2014, lch. 25) dá aire “go n-atáirgeann Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus ar chríoch na Bulgáire nua-aimseartha amháin [...]. In áiteanna eile ar domhan sónn sé agus stadann sé ag atáirgeadh i ndiaidh 1-2 choipeadh.” Is é an baictéar a dhéanann difear do shaintréithe sonracha an táirge.

5.2. Tosca daonna

Tá traidisiún fada stairiúil ag tionscal déanta cáise na Bulgáire. Tá tagairtí stairiúla do dhéirithe cáise ann chomh fada siar le 1558. Tá an saineolas teicniúil agus na traidisiúin, a cuireadh síos ó ghlúin go glúin, atá ag feirmeacha teaghlaigh na Bulgáire ríthábhachtach ó thaobh an cháis sin a tháirgeadh. Cuirtear na déantóirí cáise a scileanna i bhfeidhm sa phróiseas teicneolaíochta, i ngruthú an bhainne, gearradh an ghrutha binide, fáscadh an ghrutha agus sa sailleadh. Nuair a bhíonn bainne á ghruthú, déantar faireachán ar theocht an bhainne amh chomh maith leis an méid giosta agus saothráin tús gabhála, toisc go bhfuil an méid sin ríthábhachtach ó thaobh gruth binide d’ardcháilíocht a dhéanamh. Coraíonn an lucht déanta cáise an gruth de láimh le gluaiseachtaí réidh ionas nach ndéanfar an gruth binide a ilbhriseadh. Is ríthábhachtach próiseáil chuí de láimh a dhéanamh ar an ngruth binide chun comhsheasmhacht measartha daingean leaisteach a bhaint amach. Agus rud eile, gearrtar an cruth binide de láimh ina chiúbanna de mhéid áirithe trí úsáid a bhaint as sceana ar leith ar ilghearrthóirí iad. In Млекарство [Feirmeoireacht déiríochta] (prof. Nikola Dimov et al., Sofia, 1975) tuairiscítear gur é an fáscadh an chéim is íogaire nach mór a oiriúnú chun gur féidir an meadhg breise a dheighilt, an mhais cáise a dhlúthú agus an screamh inmhianaithe a fhoirmiú ar an dromchla. Léirítear eolas agus scileanna an lucht déanta cáise sa phróiseas saillte freisin, de bhrí mbaintear amach, le sailleadh cuí tráthúil, blas suntasach measartha goirt. Déantar faireachán ar mhéid an tsaillte agus ar an ráta ag a ndéantar an táirge a shailleadh rud a dhéanann difear nach beag do na próisis mhicribhitheolaíocha agus bhithcheimiceacha le linn aibithe agus stórála. Tugadh isteach innealra le linn an tionsclaithe ach leantar den ghruthú agus an phróiseáil a dhéanamh de láimh. Cuirtear an cheardaíocht déanta cáise ar aghaidh ó cheardaí go ceardaí agus, sa chaoi sin, caomhnaítear modh traidisiúnta déanta an táirge.

Tá tuairisc ar an eolas agus na scileanna a theastaíonn chun cáis a tháirgeadh ar fáil i roinnt leabhar. In 1872, foilsíodh alt dar teideal “Производство на сирене” [Táirgeadh cáise] san iris Читалище agus in 1903, thug Hristo G. Tahtunov tuairisc ar an teicníc ina leabhar Как се прави кашкавал и бяло саламурено сирене [Conas cáis bhuí agus cáis bhán faoi sháile a dhéanamh]. Dhá bhliain ina dhiaidh sin, d’fhionn an Dr Stamen Grigoroff an baictéar Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus ar aonraíodh agus ar roghnaíodh a thréithchineálacha sa Bhulgáir. Nuair a chuingrítear Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus le Streptococcus thermophilus i gcóimheas 1:1 agus ag teocht 39-40 °C, oiriúnaíonn sé don phróiseas coipthe de réir mar a aibíonn an cháis. Is as aibiú na cáise a thagann blas agus cumhra sonrach “Българско бяло саламурено сирене/Bulgarsko byalo salamureno sirene”. In 1934, thug Cuideachta Talmhaíochta na Bulgáire isteach paistéaradh bainne úir agus úsáid cultúr íon sa táirgeadh. Ina dhiaidh sin, fuarthas amach, i dtaighde a rinne an Institiúid um Thionscal Bainne in Vidin gurb í bainteacht an bhaictéir Bhulgáraigh Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus le táirgeadh an táirge bunús a bhlaise agus a chumhra ar leith.

5.3. Saintréithe an táirge

Baintear amach blas agus uigeacht an táirge, arb iad a phríomh-shaintréithe, trí bhíthin teicneolaíocht táirgeachta thraidisiúnta ina bhfuil ról cinniúnach ag na baictéir aigéid lachtaigh Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus.

Is é is príomhfheidhm do na baictéir lachtacha sna saothráin tús gabhála aigéad lachtach a tháirgeadh le linn coipeadh lachtach. Tá na heinsímí atá iontu bainteach sa phróitéilíseas agus i dtiontú aimíonaigéad ina gcomhdhúile aramatacha, agus rannchuidíonn siad le haibiú na cáise. Is próiseas casta é sainbhlas na cáise a fháil mar gheall ar an meascán uathúil de thosca micribhitheolaíocha, bithcheimiceacha agus teicneolaíochta. Tagann blas an táirge ní amháin as blas aigéad-lachtach séimh an tsaothráin tús gabhála sin agus as an sáile ach chomh maith leis sin, as seirbhe neamhshuntasach éadrom tháirgí díghrádúcháin na bproitéiní casta agus aimínaigéid áirithe, aigéad glútamach go háirithe. Le linn an aibithe, déantar thart ar 130 cineál substaintí so-ghalaithe amhail: aimíní, aildéid, alcóil, aigéid bhocsaileacha, céatóin meitile, eistir eitile, comhdhúileacha sulfair agus hidreacarbóin aramatacha a fhoirmiú faoi sháile, rud a thugann blas agus cumhra sainiúil don táirge. Is í an chuingir sin de bhlas agus cumhra a thugann a cumhracht féin don cháis.an

5.4. Nasc cúisíoch idir an limistéar geografach agus cáilíocht nó saintréithe an táirge (maidir le STFC) nó cáilíocht shonrach an táirge, an cháil atá air nó saintréith eile atá aige (maidir le TGFC)

Cuidíonn dálaí nádúrtha agus aeráide an limistéir gheografaigh, a bhfuil méideanna measartha teasa agus taise go mór chun cinn ann le forbairt baictéar lachtach atá tipiciúil don mhicreaflóra réigiúnach, amhail Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus. Déanann saothráin tús gabhála Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus agus Streptococcus thermophilus difear do bhlas aigéad-lachtach agus cumhra séimh “Българско бяло саламурено сирене/Bulgarsko byalo salamureno sirene”. Foirmítear iad sin le linn an phróisis aibithe faoi sháile. Tairgtear an cháis seo trí phróisis mhicribhitheolaíocha ar leith a bhuí le saothráin íon ina bhfuil Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus agus le paraiméadair shonracha atá fabhrach dá bhforbairt.

Tá ról fíorthábhachtach ag traidisiúin agus scileanna an lucht déanta cáise sa táirgeadh. Cuirtear i bhfeidhm iad sa phróiseas teicneolaíochta, i ngruthú an bhainne, gearradh an ghrutha binide, fáscadh an ghrutha agus sa sailleadh go háirithe. Nuair a bhíonn bainne á ghruthú, déantar faireachán ar theocht an bhainne amh chomh maith leis an méid giosta agus saothráin tús gabhála, toisc go bhfuil an méid sin ríthábhachtach ó thaobh gruth binide d’ardcháilíocht a dhéanamh. Tá tábhacht ag baint leis sin ó thaobh comhsheasmhacht measartha daingean agus leaisteacha a bhaint amach. An gruth binide a ghearradh de láimh ag baint úsáid as sceana ar ilghearrthóirí ar leith iad, tá sin tábhachtach freisin. Léirítear eolas agus scileanna na ndéantóirí cáise sa phróiseas saillte freisin, lena mbaintear amach blas suntasach measartha goirt.

Tagann saintréithe sonracha an táirge as an mbainne amh a fhaightear sa limistéar geografach. Bíonn na hainmhithe déiríochta ar féarach sa limistéar sin agus déanann sin difear do chumhra agus blas an bhainne amh agus don leibhéal ard Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus. Is í an tréimhse innilte níos faide is cúis le héagsúlacht na mianraí agus na vitimíní i gcomhdhéanamh an bhainne amh. Tá cion cothromaithe sonrach ann de shubstaintí mianracha mar atá potaisiam, maignéisiam, fosfar, agus cailciam agus vitimíní (A,B, E agus D agus aigéad fólach). Déanann comhdhéanamh ceimiceach, airíonna fisiciceimiceacha agus aibíocht bhitheolaíoch an bhainne, chomh maith leis na dálaí aibithe, difear suntasach do cháilíocht agus blas na cáise.

Baintear réimse leathan d’úsáidí as “Българско бяло саламурено сирене/Bulgarsko byalo salamureno sirene” le linn cócaireachta toisc go mbíonn a struchtúr leaisteach nuair a théitear é. Tá an táirge ina chomhábhar i mbianna traidisiúnta sa réigiún lena n-áirítear sailéad shopska ‘banitsa [mias taosráin], “mish-mash” [mias uibhe agus glasraí scrofa] mar a thuairiscíonn Maria Baltadzhieva.

Tagairt d’fhoilsiú na sonraíochta

https://www.mzh.government.bg/bg/politiki-i-programi/politiki-i-strategii/politiki-po-agrohranitelnata-veriga/zashiteni-naimenovaniya/blgarsko-byalo-salamureno-sirene/

(1) IO L 343, 14.12.2012, lch. 1.

		ISSN 1977-107X
Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh		C 129

An t-eagrán Gaeilge	Faisnéis agus Fógraí	66 13 Aibreán 2023

Clár		Leathanach
	II Faisnéis
	FAISNÉIS Ó INSTITIÚIDÍ, Ó CHOMHLACHTAÍ, Ó OIFIGÍ, AGUS Ó GHNÍOMHAIREACHTAÍ AN AONTAIS EORPAIGH
	An Coimisiún Eorpach
2023/C 129/01	Gan cur i gcoinne comhchruinniú ar tugadh fógra faoi (Cás M.11005 — RENAULT / MINTH / JV) ( 1 )	1

	Airgeadra	Ráta malairte
USD	dollar na Stát Aontaithe	1,0922
JPY	yen na Seapáine	146,09
DKK	krone na Danmhairge	7,4506
GBP	punt steirling	0,88038
SEK	krona na Sualainne	11,3480
CHF	franc na hEilvéise	0,9853
ISK	króna na hÍoslainne	149,10
NOK	krone na hIorua	11,4745
BGN	lev na Bulgáire	1,9558
CZK	koruna Phoblacht na Seice	23,421
HUF	forint na hUngáire	376,23
PLN	zloty na Polainne	4,6631
RON	leu na Rómáine	4,9385
TRY	lira na Tuirce	21,0976
AUD	dollar na hAstráile	1,6377
CAD	dollar Cheanada	1,4728
HKD	dollar Hong Cong	8,5737
NZD	dollar na Nua-Shéalainne	1,7649
SGD	dollar Shingeapór	1,4538
KRW	won na Cóiré Theas	1 448,10
ZAR	rand na hAfraice Theas	20,1330
CNY	renminbi-yuan na Síne	7,5183
IDR	rupiah na hIndinéise	16 253,32
MYR	ringgit na Malaeisia	4,8193
PHP	peso na nOileán Filipíneach	60,291
RUB	rúbal na Rúise
THB	baht na Téalainne	37,391
BRL	real na Brasaíle	5,4635
MXN	peso Mheicsiceo	19,7972
INR	rúipí na hIndia	89,6875

Saintréithe anailíseacha ginearálta
Neart alcóil uasta (% de réir toirte)
Neart alcóil iarbhír íosta (de réir toirt %)	11,5
Aigéadacht iomlán íosta	73,15 i milleachoibhéisí in aghaidh an lítir
Aigéadacht sho-ghalaithe uasta (milleachoibhéisí in aghaidh an lítir)
Dé-ocsaíd sulfair iomlán uasta (milleagraim in aghaidh an lítir)

Saintréithe anailíseacha ginearálta
Neart alcóil uasta (% de réir toirte)
Neart alcóil iarbhír íosta (de réir toirt %)	12
Aigéadacht iomlán íosta	73,15 i milleachoibhéisí in aghaidh an lítir
Aigéadacht sho-ghalaithe uasta (milleachoibhéisí in aghaidh an lítir)
Dé-ocsaíd sulfair iomlán uasta (milleagraim in aghaidh an lítir)

	IV Fógraí
	FÓGRAÍ Ó INSTITIÚIDÍ, Ó CHOMHLACHTAÍ, Ó OIFIGÍ, AGUS Ó GHNÍOMHAIREACHTAÍ AN AONTAIS EORPAIGH
	An Coimisiún Eorpach
2023/C 129/02	Rátaí malairte an euro — 12 Aibreán 2023	2
2023/C 129/03	Faisnéis ón gCoimisiún Eorpach, arna foilsiú i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 22(2) de Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1005/2008 ón gComhairle, maidir le fógraí ón stát brataí (Liosta de na Stáit agus dá n-údaráis inniúla), de réir Airteagal 20(1), ( 2) agus (3) de Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1005/2008 agus Iarscríbhinn III a ghabhann leis	3
	FÓGRAÍ A bhAineAnn LEIS An LimistéAr EorpAch EAcnAmAíoch
	Údarás Faireacháin CSTE
2023/C 129/04	Cinneadh Uimh. 44/23/COL an 8 Márta 2023 chun imscrúdú foirmiúil a oscailt maidir le státchabhair líomhnaithe do Farice — Cuireadh chun barúlacha a chur isteach maidir le saincheisteanna státchabhrach de bhun Airteagal 1(2) de Chuid I de Phrótacal 3 a ghabhann leis an gComhaontú idir na Stáit CSTE maidir le hÚdarás Faireacháin agus Cúirt Bhreithiúnais a Bhunú	22

	V Fógairtí
	GNÍOMHARTHA EILE
	An Coimisiún Eorpach
2023/C 129/05	Foilsiú iarratais ar fhormheas leasaithe, nach mionleasú é, ar shonraíocht táirge de bhun Airteagal 50(2)(a) de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1151/2012 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle maidir le scéimeanna cáilíochta do tháirgí talmhaíochta agus do bhia-earraí	47
2023/C 129/06	Foilsiú an doiciméid aonair dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 94(1), pointe (d), de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1308/2013 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle agus na tagartha d’fhoilsiú na sonraíochta táirge le haghaidh ainm in earnáil an fhíona	61
2023/C 129/07	Foilsiú iarratais ar ainm a chlárú de bhun Airteagal 50(2)(a) de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1151/2012 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle maidir le scéimeanna cáilíochta do tháirgí talmhaíochta agus do bhia-earraí	67